Quantcast
Channel: MONKS AND MERMAIDS (A Benedictine Blog)
Viewing all 948 articles
Browse latest View live

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE CHURCH: A Sermon for Pentecost by Metropolitan Anthony of Souroz : OUR FUNCTION DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

$
0
0

We are continuing to find articles on Pentecost long after Pentecost is over, which makes me wish that we still had "time after Pentecost".   I know that Pentecost is the feast that completes the Paschal Mystery which leads up to it.   Nevertheless, the time of the Church is not so much the "time after Pentecost" as the "time IN Pentecost", because the Holy Spirit is still coming down.   We live in the situation, in the context of Pentecost.   In fact, the Church is no less in Pentecost as were the Apostles; and our understanding of Christ's revelation, whether we belong to East or West, reflects this.   After all, we are integral parts of the same Eucharist.   

It follows that we must take seriously not only all we have in common - I have never read anything of Metropolitan Anthony which has not illumined my path as a Catholic - but we must take seriously our objections against each other.   They are not like the objections of the Protestant Reformation, even though these Protestant objections have sometimes been adopted by Orthodox in their verbal conflicts with Catholics.   Authentic Orthodox objections arise, not from a rejection of Tradition, but from fidelity to their own Tradition which, for a thousand years at least, was identical to our own.   Once both sides accept that the two versions of Tradition, separated from each other by the schism, are rooted in a more fundamental unity brought about by the Holy Spirit in the celebration of the same Eucharist, then they might be able to accept the need to understand each other, as is being done  in the Orthodox - Catholic dialogue.   However, I accept the Russian Orthodox claim  that this will not happen until we discover the need for each other in our ordinary, day-to-day ecclesial lives.   Meanwhile, let us both concentrate on the re-conversion of Europe, discover our true identity in the other.

The colour of Pentecost in the East is green, the colour of life; and churches are decorated with branches, as in the photo above.



In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

The Church of God is not an institution, it is a miracle and it is a mystery. It is a miracle because who and how could we expect that closeness of God which is revealed to us in the Church. And it is also a mystery in the original sense of the world, something which cannot be either explained or conveyed in words, something that can be known only through a spellbound communion with God. The English word “God” comes from a Germanic root that means “him, before whom one prostrates in adoration”. This is where our knowledge of God begins – the sense of the divine presence that forces us down to our knees, spellbound, silent, not with an empty silence that is ours at times but with a silence which is nothing but intent worshipful listening, listening to the presence, listening to that presence which is at the core of the silence. And he who speak to us within this silence is the Holy Spirit, who unveils before our minds and hearts what the words spoken by God, revealed to us in the Gospel truly convey. It is only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we can both believe and understand what Christ spoke because words in themselves are always equivocal, they may be clear or obscure, they may be made to mean what they never meant. And this is the role of the Holy Spirit — to make us understand God’s word as it was born in the divine silence and unfolded before us in words which we could understand. But these words are not a prison, they are an open door as Christ is the door leading to the Father and leading to eternal life. It is the Holy Spirit who according to the promise of our Lord unveils for us the meaning of the Scriptures, it is not scholarship, it is worship and a worship that allows us to commune with the mind of God and the heart of God. The Spirit of truth, but also Him whom the Scripture calls the Paraclete, a complex word as so many of the words of ancient languages. It means “the Comforter”, Him who gives consolation. It means ‘Comforter’ in the sense that He gives us strength, it means also “Him, who brings joy”. And these three meanings are important but He can be to us the Comforter in these various ways only if we are in need of His comfort.

What kind of consolation do we need? Most of us feel perfectly comfortable in our lives and indeed in our worship and our spiritual lifem and who of us is in a position to say with all the intensity and depth with which St. Paul spoke these words, “For me life is Christ, death would be a gain because as long as I live in the body, I am separated from Christ.” Can we honestly say that for us life is Christ, that all that He stands for is life-giving, all that is contrary to Him, to us is death? Can we say that we have died with Christ to everything which is alien to God? Can we say that we are alive only when the things of God come our way — prayer, deep meditation, the kind of understanding which the Spirit of God reveals to us? And so we must ask ourselves very sternly a first question: is Christ my life or not? Would it be enough for me to feel that life is fulfilled, complete to be at one with Christ in all things or do I feel that there are so many things which I love and which I am not prepared to let go off even to be with Christ?

And again, Christ is in the midst of us invisibly, mysteriously. Yes, but He is not with us in the way in which He was with the Apostles. We cannot say with St. John that we speak of what we have seen, what we have heard, what our hands have touched. We know Christ in the spirit, no longer in the flesh, and yet Christ rose in the flesh, Christ ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father in His body glorified. Paul longed to be with Him in this companionship full of veneration, of reverence, of love. He wanted to be at one with Him without anything separating from Him. Who shall make me free of this body of corruption, of this body against which my thoughts and my prayers and my best inclinations, and my most passionate impulses for good break down? Can we say that? Is death what we expect longingly because it will unite us to Christ? Or are we still pagan at heart and do we wish to flee from death? And instead of saying, “Lord, Jesus, come and come soon,” aren’t we prepared to say, “Tarry, o Lord, tarry, give me time,” in the way in which Augustine prayed to the Lord after his conversion, “Lord, give me chastity but not just now.” Isn’t it that our condition — not concerning chastity alone but everything in life: not just now, o Lord, the time will come when all my energies will be spent, when age will have come and made life much less attractive or unpalatable — then take me. No, this is not it. And so when we think of the Holy Spirit as our Comforter, as one who consoles us from the absence of Christ by making us to commune with the essence of things, where do we stand? Is He our Comforter while we need no comfort?

And again, in our ministry how often do we feel that we are totally, ultimately helpless, that what we are called to do is simply beyond human possibilities? In the beginning of the Eucharistic celebration in the Orthodox Church, when the priest is vested, when he has prepared the Holy Gifts, when he is about to give the first liturgical exclamation, when in his naivety he may think, “Now I will perform miracles on earth,” the deacon turns to him and says, “And now, father, it is for God to act.” All you could do, you have done, you have prayed and prepared yourself, made yourself open to God, you have vested yourself and become an image – but only an image not the thing. You have prepared the bread and the wine and now what is expected of you is something which you cannot do, you cannot by any power including apostolic succession make this bread into the Body of Christ, this wine into the Blood of Christ, you have no power over God and you have no power over the created world. It is only Christ who is the only celebrant because He is the High Priest of all creation who sending the Holy Spirit can break through into time, open it up so that eternity can flow, indeed, make eruption into it and within this eschatological situation in which eternity fills time make possible the impossible, make bread into the Body of Christ crucified and risen, the wine into the Blood of Christ crucified and risen.

And all our function depends only on the Holy Spirit. Strength? St. Paul hoped for strength, he prayed for it and the Lord answered him, “My grace suffices unto thee, My strength is made manifest in weakness.” And Paul rejoices in his weakness, so, he says, that all should be the power of God. Not the weakness of our slackness, of our laziness, of our timidity, of our cowardice, of our forgetfulness, no, not that weakness but the frailty recognised, which is given to God, the surrender of ourselves.

If I may use an image, it is that of the sail of a sailing ship. Of all the parts of the ship the sail is the frailest, the weakest and yet filled with the wind, and the word “wind” in ancient languages is the same as “spirit” “ruah”, “πνευμα” it can carry the heavy structure of the ship to its haven. This is the kind of weakness, of frailty which we have got to offer to God, such frailty that He can use it freely, without resistance, and then our strength will be stronger than anything which the created world can possess. The martyrs were frail, as frail as we were, but they abandoned themselves to God and they lived and died in the power of the Spirit. We need that strength.

And then the Paraclete is the one that gives joy, the joy of entering already now into eternity, the joy of being joined to Christ in the communion of the one body, the joy of giving our lives for Him and if necessary – our death, a joy which the world cannot give but which the world cannot take away.

I will end on one example of this joy of the Spirit. I met a few years ago in Russia an elderly priest who had spent 36 years in prisons and concentration camps. He sat opposite me with eyes shining with joy and gratitude and he said, “Do you realise, can you imagine, how infinitely good God had been to me? The Soviet authorities did not allow a priest either into prisons or into camps; and He chooses me, a young, inexperienced priest and sends me first to prison and then to camp to look after his lost sheep.” There was nothing in him but gratitude and joy. And that joy, that kind of gratitude against the history of his life was truly an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Let us therefore in all our life, whether we pray, listen to the unutterable groanings of the Spirit within us, teaching us ultimately to call the God of Heaven our Father if we are in Jesus Christ, in the words of Irenaeus of Lyon, sons of God in the Only-Begotten Son of God. Let us open ourselves and listen intently when we have got to preach, so that it should not be a work of our intellect or learning but a sharing of something which we have learnt from God. However poor, childlike, simple it may seem, let it be God’s. And when we come to the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, let us remember that we stand where no-one can stand but the High Priest of all creation, the Lord Jesus Christ and let us turn to the Holy Spirit calling Him to make the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in an act Divine which we can only mediate by faith and in obedience to Christ’s own command. Amen.




POPE FRANCIS: EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC: by Father Dwight Longenecker (plus) videos on the Mass (Catholic) and Divine Liturgy (Orthodox)

$
0
0

Earlier this year an extraordinary event took place in the Vatican. Bishop Tony Palmer -- a bishop in an Anglican breakaway church met with Pope Francis. Palmer and then-Archbishop Bergoglio had become friends when the Evangelical Charismatic Anglican minister was a missionary in Argentina. Once he was wearing the white soutane, Pope Francis telephoned Palmer and asked to meet. 

During their extended breakfast the Pope asked Tony Palmer what he could do to encourage unity with Evangelical Protestants. Bishop Tony pulled out his iPhone and said, “Why not record a video greeting to the group of influential charismatic Christians I am going to meet at a conference in Texas next week? Pope Francis obliged and the greeting can be viewed here

After Pope Francis’ greeting was played to the conference of Protestant Evangelical leaders, the television evangelist Kenneth Copeland gave a warm response and said he wanted to visit with the Pope. 

 That meeting has now taken place. Rick Wiles reports that a delegation led by Bishop Tony Palmer traveled to Rome and met with Pope Francis for three hours. James and Betty Robison hosts of the Life Today television program and Kenneth Copeland founder of Kenneth Copeland ministries were accompanied by Reverend Geoff Tunnicliff, CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance; Rev. Brian Stiller and Rev. Thomas Schirrmacher, also from the World Evangelical Alliance. Also in attendance were Rev. John Arnott and his wife, Carol, co-founders of Partners for Harvest ministries in Toronto, Canada.

 This meeting is all the more remarkable since not too long ago conservative Evangelicals in North America were inclined to view the Catholic Church as the “great whore of Babylon” and the Pope as the antichrist. The Evangelical leaders were not only impressed by the simplicity and warmth of Pope Francis's welcome, but they clearly had a fellowship in Christ that has been lacking in the past. 

 How can we understand the warmth between conservative Evangelical Protestants and Pope Francis? What we are witnessing is the fruit of a historic realignment in Christianity. For some time now the real division in Christianity has not been between Catholics and Protestants. It has been between those Christians who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. The real divide is between progressives who wish to alter the historic faith according to the spirit of the age, and those who believe the spirit of the age should be challenged by the eternal and unchanging truth of the Christian gospel. Those who believe in a relative, progressive and modernist form of Christianity dismiss the miraculous element of religion, believe the church and the Scriptures are merely man made accidents of history and think the church should adapt completely to the needs of modern society. The progressives see the church as an agent of social change and think the main task of Christians is to be political activists. The other side are those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed by God for the salvation of souls and the transformation of the world. These historic Christians believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and that the gospel cannot be changed by the culture of any age. They might be called classical Christians because they believe the “old, old story” of a sinful humanity and a merciful God who gave his own Son for the salvation of the world.

 Progressive and Classical Christians can be found in all the denominations and ecclesial structures. There are classical and progressive Catholics and classical and progressive Protestants. The recent meeting between Pope Francis and the Evangelical leaders reveals that the classical Christians of all traditions have more in common than the classical Christians have with progressives. 

 The astounding thing about the papacy is that the words and actions of popes are not only rooted firmly in the past, but they very often are prophetic of the future. The words and actions of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both rooted in the past and yet pointed to the future. Likewise with Pope Francis. His meeting with Evangelical leaders points to a new alignment within global Christianity. As the progressive Christians merge increasingly with the spirit of the age the divide between them and classical Christians will become increasingly acute. As this happens the classical Christians of all denominations will begin to coalesce and cooperate more closely. Classical Christians from Eastern Orthodoxy through Roman Catholicism, classical Anglicanism and Evangelicalism will all find an increasing understanding and agreement. The increasingly close fellowship with Evangelicals will be hastened as progressive Christianity moves away to become something other than Christian. The rapprochement between classical Evangelicals and Catholics will also burgeon as dark forces on various fronts rise up against Christ and his church. Opposition to classical Christianity and simmering threat of persecution will foster a new depth of meaning to the term “Evangelical Catholic.” 

 Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the author of More Christianity: Finding the Fullness of the Faith.

THE MONASTERY OF SAINT MACARIUS THE GREAT AT SCETIS (WADI NATRUN, EGYPT) THE REVIVAL OF MODERN COPTIC MONASTICISM

$
0
0
History of the Monastery

The Monastery of St. Macarius lies in Wadi Natrun, the ancient Scetis, 92 kilometers from Cairo on the western side of the desert road to Alexandria. It was founded in 360 A.D. by St. Macarius the Egyptian, who. was spiritual father to more than four thousand monks of different nationalities-Egyptians, Greeks, Ethiopians, Armenians, Nubians, Asians, Palestinians, Italians, Gauls and Span-lards. There were among them men of letters and philosophers, and members of the aristocracy of the time, along with simple illiterate peasants. From the fourth century up to the present day the monastery has been continuously inhabited by monks. [(1) Fr. Matta el-Meskeen has written a major work (in Arabic) on the history and archeology of the Monastery of St. Macarius entitled "Coptic Monasticism in the time of St. Macarius" Cain, 1972, 880 pp.]

In 1969 the monastery entered an era of restoration, both spiritually and architecturally, with the arrival of twelve monks with their spiritual director, Fr. Matta el-Meskeen. These monks had spent the previous ten years living together entirely isolated from the world, in caves in the desert area known as Wadi el-Rayyan, about 50 kilo-metres south of Fayyum. There they had lived the monastic life in the fullest sense, in the spirit of the desert fathers, with that same simplicity and the same total deprivation of all the goods and cares of this world, the same deep sense of the divine love, and the same complete confidence in divine providence in the midst of the most austere natural environment and the dangers of the desert. For these twelve monks, this was a time when they were bonded together in the crucible of the divine love, uniting them in Christ, in the spirit of the Gospel.

It was the late Patriarch Cyril vi who in 1969 ordered this group of monks to leave Wadi el-Rayyan and go to the Monastery of St. Macarius to restore it. The patriarch received them, blessed them, assured them of his prayers and asked God to grant their spiritual father grace that the desert might bloom again and become the home of thousands of hermits. At that time only six aged monks were living in the monastery and its historic buildings were on the point of collapse. The new monks were warmly received by the abbot of the monastery, Bishop Michael, Metropolitan of Assiut, who through his wisdom and humility was able to create an atmosphere favourable to the renewal they hoped for.

At the present time, under the patriarch Shenouda III, who is himself busily engaged in restoring the two monasteries of St. Bishoy and Baramos, and after fourteen years of constant activity both in reconstruction and spiritual renewal, the monastic community numbers about one hundred monks. Most of them are university graduates in such diverse fields as agriculture, medicine, veterinary medicine, education, pharmacology and engineering, and have had job experience before entering the monastery. The monks live in strong spiritual unity, according to the spirit of the Gospel, practising brotherly low and the unceasing prayer of the heart. They are all directed by the same spiritual father who watches over the unity of the spirit of the monastery. The renewal is also revealed in the diligent prayer of the daily office and other liturgical services, for it is the aim of the monks to revive in the Church the spirit of the first centuries of Christianity, both by their rule of life and by conscientious study.

The reconstruction of the monastery

The new monastery buildings, designed and constructed by the monks qualified in these fields, are now nearing completion. They include more than 150 cells (each comprising a room for prayer and study, a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and small balcony), a large refectory where the monks gather daily to share an agape meal, a new library with space for several thousand volumes, and a spacious guest house comprising several reception rooms and a number of single rooms for retreatants and other guests. Buildings to house various utilities have also been constructed, including a kitchen, bakery, barns, garages and a repair-shop. The new buildings occupy an area of ten acres, six times that covered by the old monastery.

In addition, the historic buildings in the monastery have been care-fully restored. This difficult and delicate task has been supervised by prominent archeologists [Drs. Gamal Mehriz, Gamal Mokhtar, Abdel Rahman Abdel Tawwab and Zaki Iskandar, and the German archeologist Dr. Grossmann.] under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities. These specialists have expressed their admiration for the way in which the archeological work has been carried out by the monks, who, under their guidance, have restored and fortified the historic buildings, while at the same time demolishing the recent and dilapidated constructions, which encroached upon and even covered the ancient monuments. The old toilets in particular needed to be removed, since their inefficient drainage system was liable to cause real damage.

The discovery of the relics of St. John the Baptist and Elisha the Prophet

During the restoration of the big Church of St. Macarius, the crypt of St. John the Baptist and Elisha the Prophet was discovered below the northern wall of the church, in accordance with the site mentioned in manuscripts from the 11th & 16th centuries found in the library of the monastery. This is also confirmed by the ecclesiastical tradition of our Coptic Church. The relies were then gathered in a special reliquary and placed before the sanctuary of St. John the Baptist in the church of St. Macarius. A detailed account of this discovery and an assessment of the authenticity of the relies have been published by the monastery.

Income

Up to the present time the community has spent about 5 million Egyptian pounds on restoration and construction. The monastery has no regular source of income and no bank account. We do not sollicit donations, publicize the monastery's financial needs or receive financial support from any organization. And yet, when the monastery's needs are put before God in our communal prayers, donations are received daily, miraculously meeting our needs exactly. The monks therefore have no doubt that God has undertaken responsibility for this enormous work, not only in the spiritual, but also in the material realm.

 Agriculture and stock firming

The monks have been reclaiming and cultivating the desert land around the monastery since 1975. First they planted fig and olive trees, varieties of fodder crops and other crops, especially water melons. Large farm buildings have been constructed one kilometre to the north of the monastery to house cows, buffalo, sheep and poultry. The Egyptian government has recognized the importance of the work of the monks in these areas, for the monastery is thus participating in solving the country's food supply problems. Particular appreciation has been expressed for our achievements in introducing and adapting to Egyptian conditions new strains of livestock, poultry and crops.

Particularly noteworthy is a new type of fodder crop (fodder beet), which the monks have cultivated for the first time in Egypt. This experiment holds promise of relieving problems of stockfarming once it is established throughout the country. In gratitude for this pioneer work, President Sadat donated to the monastery in 1978 a thousand feddans of desert land, two tractors and a new well, drilled to obtain sub-soil water, which was more important than the three already in use.

The Rule of the monastery

The single requirement the spiritual father lays down for the acceptance of a postulant is that he should have sensed within his heart, even though it be only once, a feeling of love for God, for it is the love of God which unites and rules our community day by day. We have no other law than submission to the will of God through loving Him. And as the will of God is declared principally in the Bible, attention to God’s Word, in both the Old and New Testaments, has become our main work and the source from which we continually satisfy our thirst for Him and nourish our love towards all mankind.

The only law of the monastery is love, without rules or limitations, as it was revealed to us on the cross. This love is at once the motive and aim of all our actions, efforts and sacrifices, and most of the monks have acquired a profound experience of the divine love.

The spiritual father, who has spent 35 years in the monastic life, is the director of the whole community and of each monk individually. It is he who helps each one of us discern the plan of God for his life, and it is he who, as it were, takes the place of a monastic rule. He is a living rule which is adapted to each life, to each monk, to each vocation, and which is itself constantly renewed, progressing with each monk along the path that leads to God. The spiritual father is himself being continually renewed in his inner life, and this renewal overflows to the whole community. We are not guided by predetermined principles, but by the Spirit of God in us and especially in the spiritual father, who guides us. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (IICor. 3:17). The aim of the spiritual father is first to live according to the Spirit himself, through inner illumination, taking care to maintain conformity with the tradition of the early Fathers of the Church and the monastic life. He then leaves to the Lord the task of communicating this inward experience to his spiritual sons by a special grace, so that they too may live in the inner liberty of the Spirit. He is therefore careful never to impose his own personality, but to leave each man to develop freely in his own vocation, fulfilling his own spiritual character. Any perceptive visitor notices the united spirit of all the monks as well as the clear personality of each. In this way spiritual men are formed among us, who have acquired an experience of God and know how to be spontaneously led by the inner light of the Spirit. It is men of this kind that the world needs.
We have no rules of penance or set methods of chastisement, for love is more effective than any disciplinary measure. Our sense of being pilgrims in the world makes it easy for us to submit to each other out of love for Christ.

The monk's Day

We have no very precise timetable; each monk arranges most of his own time under the guidance of the spiritual father. But a bell wakes us at three in the morning for private devotions, each monk in his own cell saying the midnight office, malting prostrations and saying personal prayers. A second bell at four o’clock summons us to the church where we chant together in Coptic the midnight hymns of praise. These are mostly of biblical canticles (Ex. 15, Ps. 135, Dn. 3, Ps. 148-150) in praise of God, the Creator and Saviour of the universe.  These are the most beautiful moments of the day in the monastery. We have taken great care to perfect our liturgical chanting and have been helped by the oldest and most authoritative canters in the Coptic Church.

We attain such harmony in the singing of these melodies that our voices are blended together, expressing the unity of our spirits. We do indeed sing the praise of the Lord with one heart and one voice (Rom. 15:6). All the monks are aware that by participating in this daily worship and sharing the common meal we receive a daily foretaste of the blessedness of the Kingdom to come. At about six o’clock this service of praise ends and we say matins.

The Union of Work with prayer

After matins each monk takes up the task assigned to him by the spiritual father, which usually corresponds with the profession he followed in the world, while his spirit is uplifted by the atmosphere of worship in which he has spent the first few hours of the day in church. In this way the monks begin to experience the mysterious unity that can exist between work and the worship of God, and with perseverence their work is spontaneously transformed from a source of fatigue, a burden and a curse (“You will eat your bread through the sweat of your brow”), into an expression of unceasing praise of God and love for the brethren.

All the work of the monastery thus becomes a spiritual activity, whether it be on the scaffolding around the buildings, in the machine shop, the carpenter's shop, the forge, the fields, the farm, the guest house, the dispensary or the enormous kitchen.) [Cf. Zech. 14:20-21 “And the pots in the house of the Lord shall be as the bowls before the altar, and every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be sacred to the Lord of Hosts, so that all who sacrifice may cane and take of them and boil the flesh of the sacrifice in them.” Thus the mat mundane daily last, such as caking, becomes a sacred work, and the whole monastery is transfigured into the Temple of the Lord. Are we not living in the messianic times proclaimed by Zechariah?] This latter caters for the labourers [All our labourers receive, apart from their wages, fm accommodation, food, clothing and medical care. we also provide them with religions, moral and vocational training.], who may number up to four hundred, as well as for our visitors, of whom there may be about fifty on normal days, or up to a thousand on holidays.

The monastery dispensary is staffed by several of our monks—two qualified physicians, an ophthalmologist, a dentist and several pharmacists. It serves the labourers and visitors, as well as the monks, providing all kinds of medical care and treatment.

All these activities are carried out under the attentive concern of the spiritual father, who has a wide practical and theoretical knowledge of these different fields, as well as in how to direct the labourers. He gives constant advice, pointing out what needs to be done, criticizing and correcting, and exposing the spiritual faults revealed by the manner in which work is carried out. Thus the practical things of life become, for the monk, an indispensible means of learning, progressing, putting into practice the spiritual principles he has learned, becoming aware of his failings and correcting them. Labour, of ten even very hard labour, is a means the spiritual father chooses to detect spiritual weaknesses and correct them psychologically and spiritually, but we have come to understand that work itself and its success or failure are of no consequence to the spiritual father; his interest is always in the integrity, growth and' maturity of the spirit.

We never divide the material and spiritual. Our whole life, even in its most material details, must contribute towards the spiritual progress of each monk and the whole community towards the worship of God, “to equip the saints for~ the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). It is our deep conviction that we attain our heavenly vocation through the carrying out of these commonplace tasks on earth.

This unity between the material and the spiritual in our lives is an important principle in our spirituality, and is the reason why the spiritual father’s direction is not restricted to the inner life, but extends to every detail of material, psychological and physical life. It is also the reason why we have no strict timetable separating times for prayer from times for work. However diverse our occupations during the day, we believe that we all have before us one essential task to which we must constantly address ourselves, whether we be at work, in our cells or in church, and that is to offer ourselves up as a sacrifice of love to the Lord Jesus, lifting up our hearts in unceasing prayer, and remaining continuously at peace, even in the midst of hard work, with the peace of Christ that passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7).

A visitor, seeing the monks at work, is quite unable to distinguish between the beginners and those who have been long in the monastic life. Work unites them in an intimacy full of love and real humility. They move in harmony and interchange every task, whether great or small, without partiality.

The Common Meal and other gatherings of the community

At about mid-day we gather in the refectory to sing the ninth hour with its twelve psalms, and this is followed by the only meal of the day taken together. While we eat, the sayings of the Fathers are read to us. The evening meal, and of course the morning meal (for the weaker or sick brethren), are taken individually in the cells at the time and in the quantity directed by the spiritual father for each, according to his ability to fast and the amount of physical labour demanded of him. In this way our common life does not impede the personal life of anyone.

From time to time the spiritual father calls us together for a time of spiritual instruction in the church. This meeting does not take place on  regular basis; it remains spontaneously dependent on the inspiration given by God to the spiritual father in response to the needs of the community.

On Sunday evenings we meet for open prayer, when each expresses extemporaneously the movement of his heart. This is the time when we set before the Lord all the spiritual and material needs of our community. We believe that this prayer meeting is very important for keeping our community in “the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3).

The Eucharistic Liturgy

Following the tradition of the desert fathers, we celebrate the eucharistic liturgy only once a week, on Sunday morning. It begins with an office of praise at two o 'clock, ends a t about eight o’clock and is followed by an agape meal. Our community is transformed by this celebration of the eucharist from a purely human gathering into the actualization of the Body of Christ. This is why the liturgy, for us, cannot be said by an individual, or even by a section of the community; it is essentially the meeting of the whole community, gathered together as the Church around the Lamb offered at His wedding feast (Rev. 19:9).

The Place of the Solitary Life in our Community

Although we live a community life, we believe that the monastic vocation is most fully realized in a life of solitude in the desert. When a monk is sufficiently mature to live alone, the spiritual father advises him to go out into the desert to live as a solitary, usually in a cave in the rock. Before this decisive step is taken, the spiritual father may allow certain monks to experience the sweetness of the solitary life for a limited period of time, either in a cave or in their own cell.

Our Message to the World

The monastery receives large numbers of Egyptian and foreign visitors, sometimes as many as a thousand in one day. Most are primarily seeking to receive a blessing from this place, which has been made sacred by the tears and prayers of generations of saints whose names are famous throughout the world. Who has not heard of Macarius the Great, Macarius of Alexandria, John the Short, Paphnutius, Isidore, Arsenius and Abba Moses, Paemen, Serapion, the elders of Scetis and so many others?

Monks are made available to visitors, to listen to them, answer their questions and give spiritual guidance. Most of our visitors experience relief from their cares and problems as soon as they enter 'he monastery, for the great spiritual joy which they receive from this blessed place makes them able to overcome all that grieves them.

Particularly during the summer vacation, the monastery offers to young people the opportunity of spending a few days on retreat in our community. They receive spiritual direction and guidance about their life in society without imposing any commitment to the monastery or a monastic pattern on their life.

Special priority is given to priests, full-time lay workers and Sunday school teachers, who come to prepare themselves better to offer their lives to God in their different spheres of ministry.

Through the writings of the spiritual father, which amount to more than seventy books and two hundred articles, the monastery is playing a significant role in the spiritual awakening of the Coptic Church. Our monthly magazine St. Mark is addressed especially to the spiritual needs of young people, and many of the spiritual father’s sermons have been recorded and are circulated on cassette tapes among Copts in Egypt and abroad. In 1978 the monastery installed a modern printing press which produces all our publications in Arabic and foreign languages. The few articles that have been translated into European languages have been warmly received in a variety of places.

The monastery is characterized by a sincere openness to all men, of whatever religion or confession. We receive all our visitors, no matter what their religious conviction, with joy, warmth and graciousness, not out of a mistaken optimism, but in genuine and sincere love for each person. We offer to every visitor our hearts and our sincere friendship.

The monastery maintains spiritual, academic and fraternal links with several monasteries abroad, including the monastery of Chevtogne in Belgium, Solesmes Abbey and the Monastery of the Transfiguration in France, Deir el-Harf in Lebanon and the Convent of $be Incarnation in England. Several monks from these monasteries have stayed with us for various periods of time.

The monastery enjoys good relations with the various government departments and organizations. It is well-known that our monks have completed their military service commitments and many among us spent some time as officers or in the ranks. The political views of Fr. Matta el-Meskeen are widely respected for their integrity, humanity and seriousness. In his book “Church and State,” he declares that politics should be entirely separated from religion. “Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s, and unto God that which is Cod’s” (Mat. 22:21). In other writings such as “Sectarianism and Extremism" he warns against the common tendency of minorities to be wrapped up in themselves and despise others.

A monk is aware of his critical responsibility before a sinful world, a Church fallen- into division and decadence, the younger generation slipping further and further away from God. He considers himself a representative before God of a suffering world and so offers himself every day as a sacrifice, united with the sacrifice of Christ, for the salvation of the world. On the practical side, all the monks work towards furthering their education by serious study, so that they may be ready at any time to serve the Lord anywhere in any capacity that does not conflict with their monastic vocation.

The Monastery and Christian Unity

In our monastery we live out fully the unity of the Church in spirit and in truth, in anticipation of its visible attainment ecclesiastically. Through our genuine openness of heart and spirit to all men, no matter what their confession, it has become possible for us to see ourselves, or rather Christ, in others. For us, Christian unity is to live together in Christ by love. Then divisions collapse and differences disappear, and there is only the One Christ who gathers us all into His holy Person.

Theological dialogue must take place, but we leave this to those who are called to it. For ourselves, we feel that the unity of the Church exists in Christ and that we therefore discover in Him the fulness of unity in the measure in which we are united to Him. “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation” (II Cor. 5:17). And in this new creation there is no multiplicity but “one new man” (Eph. 2:15). Although we practise our Orthodox faith, and are aware of all the truth and spiritual riches it contains, we still recognize that in Christ “there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). While wounds in the Body of Christ exist, we would offer our lives daily in sacrifice for the reconciliation of the Churches.

We have found in the religious life the best means of attaining union with Christ and hence the best way of fulfilling that new creation which gathers men “of every nation, race, people and tongue” (Rev. 7:9) into unity of spirit and heart. This has been a clear feature of the monastic life in Scetis since the beginning. The particular gift of St. Macarius was that, as a spiritual director, he was able to gather together men of conflicting temperaments, different social classes and diverse races. Among his spiritual sons were Abba Moses, a Nubian bandit, alongside Arsenius, a Roman philosopher and tutor to the children of the emperor, illiterate Egyptian peasants side by side with the princes Maximus and Domadius. And they all lived in perfect spiritual harmony through the great spirit of love which was the life breath of St. Macarius, and was passed on by him to contemporaries and then· to his spiritual heirs up to our own time.

It is our hope that the desert of Scetis will become once more the birth place of good will, reconciliation and unity between all the peoples on earth in Christ Jesus

Christ of the Whole World 
 by Father Matta El Meskine



LET US BEGIN the message of the new birth this year with the psalm of Paul the Apostle, theological in its construction, deeply human in its import, rising up to increase our knowledge of Christ and set it on a new lofty foundation, divine yet human, extending limitlessly to heaven and throughout the earth. Here the Apostle Paul describes Christ in such a way that he surpasses all our traditional knowledge and all the familiar phrases, which we sometimes find so satisfying in themselves that we go without the Christ who was born in Bethlehem. We need the words of the Apostle here at this time to shake the foundations of logical thought and awaken the Christian to a greater knowledge of his Christ, born in Bethlehem, Christ of the whole world.

The Epistle to the Colossians 1:15-20:

15 He is the image of the invisible God,

the first-born of all creation;(1)

16 for in Him all things were created,

in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,

whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities,(2)

all things were created through Him and for Him.(3)

17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.(4)

18 He is the head of the body, the Church;

He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead,(5)

that in everything He might be pre-eminent.

19 For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,(6)

20 and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things,

whether on earth or in heaven,

making peace by the blood of His cross.(7)

Let all who hear awake! We are here in the presence of the whole human race and its new head, the second Adam, whose life has neither beginning nor end, under whose fatherhood the first Adam fades into insignificance and bows down with all his descendents. And the whole creation goes to drink from the spring of His compassionate fatherhood till the end of time.

The time has come for us to know the Christ of the whole world.

We all know the Christ of the loving family gathered around the pious mother and father.

We all know the Christ of the charitable organizations and the Christ of the church congregation gathered around a fine priest.

But now is the time for us to discover the Christ of the street, the people’s Christ, the Christ of all the people, both those who have come to know Him and those who know Him not, the Christ of the wicked and the righteous, the good and the evil, in every city and village, in every people and nation, in every part of the world—the Christ of the whole world.

Christ is greater than the corner of the house where you pray, greater than the meeting hall, and the church building, and all the churches.

Christ is satisfied with nothing less than the whole world.

Christ refused to be the prisoner of a family: “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out His hand towards His disciples, He said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!” (Mt. 12:48-49).

Christ refused to be the prisoner of His disciples and the private possession of His followers: “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in Your Name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him; for he that is not against us is for us” ( ).

Christ refused to be the prisoner of principles, ideas, opinions and names: “Each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:12-13).

Christ refused to be the prisoner of places or sacred rites: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . The true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:20, 21, 23).

Christ refused to be the prisoner of a sect orf community, as He showed in the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-36).

Christ refused to be the prisoner of a land or people or to be restricted by the limits of nation, race or colour: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Go and make disciples of all nations!” (Acts 1:8; Mt. 28:19).

So we know already the Christ of Bethlehem, the Christ of Judaism and Jerusalem. Has the time now come for us to know the Christ of all the countries of the world? The whole Christ, the Christ of all the nations, without exception, distinction or partiality between one sect and another, one community and another, or between peoples, borders, races or colours? “Here there cannot be Jew or Greek (difference of race), circumcised or uncircumcised (difference of religious practice), barbarian, Scythian (difference of culture), slave, free man (social and class differences), male and female (difference of sex), but Christ is all in all” (Col. 3:11).

The Christ of the whole world was born for the sake of the whole world because He loved the whole world. And He shed His blood for the whole world. “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2), for His blood cannot be worth less than the whole world. So why do we limit and restrict the love of Christ, and judge Him to be sufficient only for us and those who follow us? Why do we make the blood of Christ our private possession and forbid it to others who do not belong to us, as if we had bought it with our piety, our principles and our wisdom? Why do we see our own sins being freely and simply washed away in the blood of Christ, and deny the same washing and purification to others with such repeated obstinacy? Christ has not set us up to defend the honour of His blood. We have done no more than be washed, and it is said with striking and ample clarity that it is expiation “not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2).

We know already the Christ of those who consider themselves “the children of the Kingdom”, the official guests at Christ’s supper table, those who laboured from the first hour of the morning. We know already the Christ of the catechism, the texts, the laws and the prescribed restrictions. Has the time now come for us to know too the Christ of the ignorant of this world, the peoples of the earth who are oblivious and those who stray in the streets and alleys of this earth? They live within no limits or restrictions and have no one to remember them or convert them.

Has the time come for us to get to know the Christ of the materialists and atheists and the irresponsible youth of the world? When they could not find their Christ in a church or in a good father or a good example, although He is the good Christ who lives for and among them and bears their sins, they began to search for Him in nature or in instinctive passions or in some drug, hoping to find their lost peace!

Has the time now come for us to get to know the Christ of such as these? The suffering, rejected, despised Christ, wandering in the streets and alleys of the city. “Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame” (Lk. 14:22).

The Christ of those rejected in accordance with the law and the prevailing systems and legislations, those counted as being out of bounds and outside the demarcating hedgerows. “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled” (Lk. 12:23).

The Christ of the tax gatherers and adulterers. “The tax collectors and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you” (Mt. 21:31)).

The Christ of the evil and the good. “ ‘Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests” (Mt. 22:9-10).

The Christ of sinners: “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (Lk. 19:7).

Has the time now come for us to goan over the rest of the members of Christ who are despised and humiliated in every part of the world, who have been stricken by sin and injustice and the works of the human mind? The church has washed her hands of them, although they are part of the church, for they are her vocation whether she like it or not. They are part of Christ and so He cannot despise or abandon them, for they are part of His suffering, His cross and His glory!

Has the time now come for us to come to full knowledge of the true face of Christ, who gathers together all these human beings in Himself, especially those who are ugly to our eyes, those whom we see as delinquent, unclean, repugnant? In spite of their presence in Him, Christ remains as beautiful, pure and holy as ever! Was He not crucified for all? Did He not “bear our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24)? Did He not wash away the sins of the whole world with His blood when His own body was stained with it? For we and the whole of humanity are His body. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). For the crucifixion took place before we came into existence, before we had faith, and the blood that was shed was the price for the redemption of all and was paid in full in advance before any man understood or accepted or asked for it.

So now, if we believe in the whole Christ, he is the Christ of the whole world, the Father of the new human race, Who adopted human nature as a whole so that it should be specially His. He was born with it to reveal Himself in it and was sacrificed in it to sanctify it and offer it as a sacrifice to the Father. Thus through Him it became a new creation, adopted, reconciled and accepted by the Father. And through it He became the Christ of the whole world, the Christ of the entire human race, “For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things” (Col. 1:19-20). If we believe in Him in this way and believe that we are united in Him, this very faith of ours makes us reponsible for the unity of human nature, which is in Christ with all its peoples and nationalities, languages and religions, doctrines and communities. We are responsible for maintaining its unity in our hearts, in our feelings, in faith and trust, in our very being as Christians. This is how it must be if we are truly in Christ and Christ in us.

The attitude of all these people to Christ is not our concern. What concerns us is His attitude to them, for we must be exactly like Him since we are one with Him. Now Christ was crucified for every man, and consequently for the whole world, and we, “crucified with Christ”, must in the same way be crucified for the whole world.

Christ died at the hands of people who bore Him a murderous enmity and whose hatred brought about His death, but Christ did not hate them, for they were part of Him. That is why He was glad to die to redeem them and the whole world from death and the curse of enmity and deadly hatred. This was, and still is, the highest understanding of practical love for the world and the finest way to gather scattered humanity into one whole. Christ’s willing death at the hands of his enemies and for their sake was the culmination of His consecration for the love of God, for by His death He drew out the poison of enmity and washed away the sin of the world. And our consecration to the world now will remain handicapped and powerless until the moment when we accept that we die, and our blood be shed with the blood of Christ, not for the sake of those we love, but for our enemies and those who are strangers to us and our beliefs, and for all those who hate us and the whole world. In this way we share with Christ the renewing work of dying for the world every day, to put enmity to death and break the grip of sin, and gather together those who are scattered apart. “For Thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered” (Rom. 8:36).

This is the highest form of consecration to the Christ of the whole world for the unity of all the peoples and nations of the earth. This is the first and greatest vocation of Christianity in the world: that we should die for the world, making no distinction between one man and another. This is the message that has been hampered and restricted by iron chains of selfishness, sectarianism, racism, and religious and national prejudice.



* * *


Every year we have celebrated the birth of Christ, but up till now He has been the Christ of our own family, the Christ of a creed shut up in itself, the Christ of the virtuous and pious, the Christ of the white races. Brethren, is it now the time to celebrate the birth of the Christ of the whole world? The Christ of every clan that is named on earth and in heaven, of every nation and tongue, of every colour—black, yellow and red? The Christ of every man who calls upon the name of the Lord, even without knowing Him? The Christ of the poor of the earth, who do not know their left from their right? The Christ of the lost sheep of the world and of the rebellious young men and women, the Christ of the sinners, the tax collectors and harlots and all who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death waiting for the dawn of the light of salvation.

This is the true Christ, Who was born in Bethlehem and crucified on Golgotha, the Christ of the whole world.


Article 0

$
0
0
PDFPrintE-mail

The Monastery of the Syrians in Wadi Natrun

by Jimmy Dunn

my source: Tour Egypt/monasteries



This monastery, one of the four well known of its kind in Wadi al-Natrun, was probably founded in the sixth century, though some might date it later. It is located about five hundred meters northwest of the Monastery of Saint Bishoi. It's establishment is closely connected with Julian's heretical doctrine which spread throughout Egypt under the patriarchate of Timothy III (517-535). The Julianist (Gaianists, after Archdeacon Gaianus, a supporter of Julianist theology who was a bishop in Alexandria c.


A closer view of the Monastery of the Syrians from outside the walls


550 was an even more extreme approach to Julianist) heresy, which owes its name to its principal exponent Julian, a theologian and bishop of Halicarnassus (Halicarnarsus) in Ionia, is also called Aphtartodocetism (Aphthartcdocetae or Phantasiastae). Julian was exiled to Egypt for having defined the doctrine of the incorruptibility of Christ's body. Julianist basically believe in an extreme view that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was incapable of corruption. They held that Christ's body was so inseparably united with the Holy Father that its natural attributes made it sinless and incorruptible. To the Orthodox Church, however, Christ had taken human flesh that prevented him from being ideal and abstract and therefore corruptible. Thus, the Orthodox Church reaffirmed and clarified the idea of the real human nature of Christ. Yet, in the monasteries at Wadi al-Naturn (Scetis), the monks embraced the doctrine of Julian.


A senior monk at the Monastery of the Syrians


A majority of the monks became followers of Aphtartodocetism, while those who refused the doctrine obtained permission from the governor Aristomachus to erect new churches and monasteries so that they could settle apart from the Julianists. These new facilities were often built along side the old ones, even keeping the same name but adding to it Theotokos (Mother of God, or God-bearer). In this way, they recognized the significance of the incarnation, which Aphtartodocetism seemed to minimize, and thus reaffirmed the charismatic dignity of the Holy Virgin.


The Monasteries of St. Pshoi and the Syrians as illustrated in Description de l'Egypte (1809)

The Monasteries of St. Pshoi and the Syrians as illustrated in Description de l'Egypte (1809)




Entrance to the Monastery of the Syrians


The Monastery of the Syrians was thus established by those of the St. Bishoi (Pishoi) monastery who were opposed to Julianist doctrines. Hence, it was originally the Monastery of the Holy Virgin Theotokos, but by the beginning of the eighth century, the problems between the Orthodox Christians and the Julianists died out and there was no longer any necessity to maintain two distinct monasteries. Therefore, it was sold to a group of wealthy Syrian merchants originally from Tekrit in Mesopotamia for the sum of 12,000 dinars. They had settled in al-Fustat in Old Cairo, and a certain Marutha from Takrit in eastern Syria converted it for use by Syrian monks who renamed it the Monastery of the Holy Virgin of the Syrians. However, some manuscripts refer to it as the Monastery of the Mother of God of the Syrians at that point. There had actually been Syrian monks at Wadi al-Natrun since the end of the fourth century, living amongst the other monks. Perhaps, the Syrians wished to live in a monastic community that would be ethnically and culturally homogeneous.



Overall Plan of the Monastery

Overall Plan of the Monastery

All of the Monasteries in the Wadi al-Natrun were subjected to horrible attacks by desert tribes, and the fifth of these by Berbers in 817 AD was particularly disastrous to this monastery. Afterwards in 850, it was rebuilt thanks primarily to the persistent labor of two monks, Matthew and Abraham. After having traveled to Baghdad to ask the caliph al-Muqtadir bi'llah to grant tax exemption to the monasteries, in 927 AD, a learned and cultured hegumen (hegomenos, a title given to priests and monks to emphasize their leading roles) named Moses of Nisibis (c. 907-943 AD) traveled to Syria and Mesopotamia in search of manuscripts. After having spent three years gathering material, he returned to Egypt, bringing with him 250 Syrian manuscripts. Soon, the monastery became an a prosperous and important facility, possessing many artistic treasures and a library rich in Syrian texts, making it a fundamental source of history and culture of Syria.


A manuscript from the Monastery of the Syrians  (Deir al-Surian)


We know, from a census taken by Mawhub ibn Mansur, the co-author of the History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church, that the monastery was populated by some sixty monks at the end of the eleventh century (1088). At that time it was the third largest in the wadi, after those of St. Macarius and St. John the Little. We are told that sometime in the middle of the twelfth century, it must have witnessed a period of trouble for a period of ten years when "no Syrian priests was present there". In the fourteenth century, as with other monasteries here, it was once again decimated, but this time by the scourge of the plague. Thus, when a monk named Moses from the monastery of Mar Gabriel in Tur Abdin called on this monastery in 1413, he found just one remaining Syrian monk. This time, it was the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius XI, who visited the monastery at the end of the fifteenth century and granted to it privileges and donations in order to restore it to its former glory. However, by now, Egyptians were once again beginning to inhabit the monastery and by 1516, only eighteen of the forty-three monks were Syrian. The trend of Egyptian replacing the Syrians continued as the prosperity of the monastery increased.


An ancient doorway within the monastery of the Syrians


By the time of the patriarchate of Gabriel VII (1526-1569), who himself had been a monk at the Monastery of the Syrians, it was able to supply ten monks to the Monastery of St. Paul and twenty to that of St. Anthony in the Eastern Desert when those two communities were damaged by Bedouin raids. In the seventeenth century, western travelers from France, Germany and England visited the monastery and reported that there were two churches, one for the Syrians and the other for the Coptic Christian monks. They also mention a miraculous "St. Ephrem's tree". Interestingly, according to tradition, Ephrem was a fourth century Syrian theologian and ascetic from Nisibis. He sought to meet the holy monk Pshoi, and thus came to the monastic centers of the  wadi.


Apostles (detail), aquarelle copy from the Monastery of the Syrians


We are told that he visited Pshoi's hermitage that was located on the future site of the monastery of the Syrians. However, when the two men met, they were unable to communicate because Ephrem spoke only Syrian. Yet, suddenly and miraculously, Pshoi began to express himself in that language, enabling his visitor to understand him. During this exchange, it is said that Ephrem leaned his staff against the door of the hermitage and all at once it became rooted and even sprouted foliage. Near the church of the Holy Virgin, monks will continue to point out even today this tamarind, miraculously born from Ephrem's staff.


A shrine within the Monastery of the Syrians


By the middle of the seventeenth century, there is no evidence that Syrian monks still inhabited the monastery, as evidenced by the visit of Peter Heyling, the Lutheran missionary of Lubeck in 1634. This fact may have surprised the Levanese Joseph Simeonis (Yusuf'Sim'an) Assemani, who was sent to Egypt by Pope Clement XI to seek ancient texts in 1715 and 1735. When he visited the Monastery of the Syrians, he found not a single Syrian monk. Nevertheless, he did manage to visit the monastery library and acquire forty precious manuscripts that today are kept in the Vatican Library. Later, between 1839 and 1851, the British Museum in London was also able to procure about five hundred Syrian manuscripts from the monastery library, concerned not only with religious topics, but also with philosophy and literature. Actually, in 1730, Granger was refused entry to the library and Browne found it impossible to obtain any manuscripts in 1792. However, in 1799 Andreossy removed some manuscripts and Lord Curzon actually purchased a considerable quantity in 1837. Tattam secured many manuscripts for the British Museum in 1839, while Tischendorf obtained only a few parchment sheets in 1844. The British Museum secured over two hundred items from Pacho in 1847, though in 1852, Brugsch was unable to purchase any. Other visitors to the monastery included Lansing (1862), Chester (1873), Junkers (1875), Jullien (1881) and Butler (1883).


The Ascension from the Monastery of the Syrians, Virgins and Apostels, aquarelle copy


Afterwards, these very manuscripts inspired intense research on the Syriac language and culture, for until that time, many classical texts from Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrates and Galen were known to Western scholars only in their thirteenth century Latin translations. Even these were often translations from earlier Arabic sources. Even though many of the manuscripts from the Monastery of the Syrians have reached us in a fragmented state, these documents are the oldest copies of important Greek classical texts, with some dating back to the fifth century. Only two Coptic patriarchs came from the Monastery of the Syrians. They were Gabriel VII the modern Pope, Shenouda III. Both patriarchs shared a common interest in restoring and repopulating abandoned monasteries. The monastery of the Syrians provides a great opportunity to study the development of Coptic wall painting. Between 1991 and 1999, several segments of wall paintings layered on top of each other were uncovered in the Church of the Holy Virgin and the Chapel of he Forty-nine Martyrs, dating from between the seventh and the thirteenth centuries. Undoubtedly, the ongoing project to uncover, restore and conserve wall paintings within this monastery will increase our knowledge about Christian Art in Egypt.

The Monastery Buildings

The Enclosure Walls The walls of the monastery enclose a rather unusual plan in relationship to others in the Wadi al-Naturn. They form an almost rectangular quadrilateral with the short sides measuring 36 meters at one end and 54 meters at the other. The two longer sides measure some 160 meters. The height of the walls varies between nine and a half and eleven and a half meters. Traditionally, the monks explain this abnormal plan in an unlikely way. According to them, the monastery was built on a model of Noah's ark. These walls most likely date to the end of the ninth century. The entrance to the monastery is located at the west end of the northern side of this enclosure wall. The Keep (Tower) The mammoth keep (qasr) is situated west of the north entrance to the monastery.


The Keep, or Tower within the Monastery


We believe it was built in the middle of the ninth century, but at any rate it was built after the enclosure walls. It belongs to a less well developed type of tower, of which the oldest examples may be found at Kellia. It consists of four stories, with access granted by a wooden drawbridge to the second floor. This is a somewhat typical configuration, where the bottom floor was used for storage of food supplied as well as the production of flour, oil and wine in order to assure supplies during a siege. In order to further insure the complete autonomy during times of trouble, there was also a water well. The second floor was, for centuries, used to house the precious library of manuscripts that were gradually surrendered, mostly to experts from the West, who sought out these volumes to enrich the collections of the Vatican Library and the British Museum. Some of the niches that once held the manuscripts are still visible. The third story, consisting of a corridor with four vaulted rooms to one side and two on the other, probably provided housing to the monks during time of danger. Like very many of the Egyptian monasteries, the fourth floor of the keep was reserved as a chapel dedicated to the Archangel Michael. Here, one finds a nave and a choir separated by the traditional wooden screen. The sanctuary is surmounted by a brick cupola supported by four pendentives that are adorned with stalactite motifs that might date back as early as the fifteenth century.




Plan of the Church of the Holy Virgin


The chapel has a barrel vaulted roof. The Church of the Holy Virgin (el-Adra) The Church of the Holy Virgin within this monastery is very ancient, dating to probably 645 AD (though some references date it as about 950 AD) and was constructed in the basilican style originally with a wooden roof. Were it not for the court and a side chapel that is dedicated to the forty-nine martyrs of Sebaste, its plan would be almost perfectly rectangular, measuring twenty-eight meters long by twelve meters wide. This church has an entrance on its north side through a court which is square and surmounted by a cupola. It opens into the monastery courtyard. The principal building of this church is clearly divided between the nave, the khurus (choir) and the triple sanctuary. The nave is completely roofed with a barrel vault and flanked by two small side aisles, which join on the west, an arrangement that is typical in Egypt. There is a masonry balustrade somewhat over one meter in height that divides the nave into two sections. There is, almost in the middle of the nave's floor, a laggan, a marble basin that was used for washing feet on Maundy Thursday (and on the feast of St. Peter and Paul).


The Three Patriarchs


Recent restorations have also revealed a composition on the southern wall of the nave. This is a tableau depicting three patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here, they are enthroned in paradise with the souls of the blessed on their laps. Their facial features and hair are schematically treated. They where brown tunics and pallia (a cloak, plural of pallium). The one in the center wears a white pallium. Small, naked figures held on the laps of the patriarchs represent the souls. This scene gives expression to the prayers found on Coptic gravestones from the eighth and ninth centuries, which read, "May God repose his soul [that the dead individual] in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This scene, which is also the subject of a daily evening prayer for the dead of the Coptic Church, is the oldest of its kind in Egypt, and can probably be attributed to the eleventh century.


The Annunciation, enrished by the presence of Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel


Prior to the restoration, a painting that has been preserved from the western half cupola depicted the Ascension of Christ. It dated to about 1225 AD. In the lower register we find the Virgin orans (with hands extended in prayer) flanked by the twelve apostles, who are depicted conversing with one another or looking upwards towards Christ in the mandorla held by two angels in the upper register. Within this upper register, Christ is enthroned and holds a book in his left hand while raising his right in blessing. To his right is the moon and to his left, the sun. All of the elements of this scene are labeled in Syriac, while the names of Christ, the sun and the moon are repeated in Coptic.

After the removal of this scene, another beautiful wall painting dating back to the time of the church's construction or a period immediately following was discovered, though this is a matter of scholarly controversy. It has been suggested by art historians that it dates either to the early eighth century, shortly after 900 AD, the time of Moses Nisibis during the first half of the tenth century, the late twelfth century, the 1170s or early 1180s and the beginning of the thirteenth century. The lettering of the inscriptions in Coptic and Greek can be dated to the ninth and tenth centuries. It is very likely that they date to the period of Moses Nisibis. There is no doubt that this painting of the is unique in Egypt. It's style differs completely from medieval Coptic painting. It depicts the annunciation in the traditional way with the Holy Virgin and the archangel Gabriel. Here, the angle Gabriel, who is the bringer of glad tidings, approaches the Holy Virgin from the left. He holds his cross-staff, and looks at the Virgin with his message written in Greek, which reads, "Hail, you full of grace! The Lord is with you!". The enthroned Virgin is turned slightly towards Gabriel, with her left hand supporting her chin and her right hand outwards.


The Annunciation, enrished by the presence of Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel


In the middle of this scene is a censer with blue flame placed on a column. This imagery of incense is exceptional in medieval Coptic wall painting. This painting is enhanced by the presence of four prophets, including Moses and Isaiah on the left and Ezekiel and Daniel on the right. Moses and Ezekiel wear red tunics and bluish pallia. Isaiah's tunic is beige and his pallium is red, while Daniel on the extreme right wears Phrygian costume with a short tunic and peaked cap. There names are written in Greek. These are the prophets who foretold of the incarnation, and they carry the text of their prophecies, written in Boharic Coptic on an opened scroll. The text of Moses reads, "I saw the bush while the fire was blazing in it, without being consumed." This text was adapted from Exodus 3:2, referring to the common title of the Virgin Theotokos as "the Burning Bush" in Orthodox hymns. The text of Isaiah is the better known prophecy, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). The prophecy of Ezekiel reads, "Then said the Lord unto me: this gate shall be shut and no man shall enter in by it save the Lord, the God of Israel" (cf. Ezekiel 44:2). The last text is a variant of Daniel 2:34, and reads, "I saw a stone cut out from the mountain without being touched by hands." In the background one sees Nazareth, represented as a walled town with gates, a church, tower, other buildings and gardens. By juxtaposing the ancient prophecies and their fulfillment, the artist has expressed the fulfillment of the divine plan through the intimate union of the Old and New Testaments.

On the west end of the south aisle is a door that, according to tradition, leads to a cell where St. Bishoi lived. He should be distinguished from the famous St. Pshoi, who lived in the fourth  century, long before the establishment of this church. The shape and position of this room corresponds roughly with the narthex of Coptic churches, though on the east wall stands an altar. There is also a hook screwed into the ceiling that we are told was used by the saint to attach his hair in order to avoid falling asleep during his many hours of prayer.


The Annunciation scene in the choir


The staircase leading to the roof lies to the south of this room. There is a grand, wooden portal that separates the center nave from the khurus, upon which a Syrian inscription marks that date, 926. The portal has ebony panels that are richly inlaid with ivory. The upper section of the portal is adorned with the figures of St. Peter, the Holy Virgin, Christ and St. Mark. The choir itself is transverse in relationship to the nave, and is the oldest of its kind in Egypt. It is typically Syrian and somewhat similar to that in the Holy Virgin of Hah in Tur Abdin. The middle part of the choir is caped by a cupola some twelve meters high. It is flanked on the north and south by two half-cupolas that are embellished with fine wall paintings that date to the thirteenth century (c. 1225). The style of these paintings is linear and incisive. The colors are pure and warm and the inscriptions are in both Syrian and Greek lettering.


The Nativity scene in the Choir


Within the south half-cupola there is a depiction of the annunciation on the left and the nativity on the right. This iconography is Byzantine in style. In the painting of the annunciation, the Holy Virgin is seated, and we see within her expression surprise at Gabriel's announcement. She has her hand raised to her chin, while the angle Gabriel approaches he from the right, extending his right arm in greeting and carrying the herald's staff. In Greek and repeated in Syrian, the angle greets Mary with, "Hail, you who are full of grace! The Lord is with you!". She sits before a house with a small dome and an arched doorway. There is a wide variety of colors including red, purple, brown and ochre against a blue and green background in this painting. In the nativity, Mary dominates the scene. She is in a lying within a cave, resting her left hand upon her knee, while her right is on her breast. The infant Jesus, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lies in a manger constructed of masonry. Above the rocky hill, angels proclaim the good news before a blue sky dotted with white stars. One of the Syriac inscriptions read, "Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace, goodwill among men." Below her we find St. Joseph, and to the far right, the Magi approach the cave bringing their gifts. According to the very ancient convention of Christian iconography, they represent the three ages of life, which include old age, maturity and youth. In the lower left corner of the scene are the shepherds, one of whom is playing a flute.


The dormition scene in the north half-cupola of the choir

The dormition scene in the north half-cupola of the choir


The Byzantine painting in the north half-cupola depicts the dormition (as the Virgin "falls asleep") of the Holy Virgin. Here, Mary is lying on the bed of her transitus (a draped bier) with her hands crossing over her breasts. At her head is Peter, while John is at her feet. Both apostles weep for her, and on either side stand five apostles communicating with on another. Behind the bed, Jesus stands holding in his arms Mary's soul in the form of a baby in swaddling white clothing, a symbol of her rebirth. Above his head, inscribed in Syriac, is the name of Christ. Christ is flanked by two medallions, each enclosing an angel holding a flabellum. In the upper register there is a mandorla carried by two angles. Here also the blue sky is dotted with stars.


The Virgin mary Suckling the Baby Jesus


There can bee seen on the west wall of the choir an inscription which represents the epigraph of the tomb of St. John Kama. His body was most likely moved to this monastery after the one dedicated to him fell into ruins. During the restoration work of this church that began in 1991 after a fire in 1988, a number of layers of plaster were partially removed, revealing many more wall paintings of different periods. Within the khurus on the half column to the right of the entrance of the sanctuary, one such scene is of the enthroned Virgin suckling the infant Jesus (Maria Lactans or Galactotrophousa). She is wearing a blue tunic and bluish green mophorion (a mantle), which is decorated with crosses. On her hap she holds the baby Jesus with her right hand while presenting her breast to him with her left. The quality of this depiction is such that it must have been the work of a master artist. One of the most beautiful of all such paintings in Egypt, it probably dates to about the seventh century. More recent restoration and preservation work in this area of the church has, and will continue to reveal other ancient paintings. Work on the northern wall, which was completely covered with plaster during the eighteenth century, has revealed a number of reasonably well preserved paintings. They belong to the second layer of painting and are probably to be dated  to the first half of the eight century.


St. Pisentios, bishop of Koptos and St. Apakir


As most of the other paintings on this layer, they were executed in the encaustic technique (using a paint consisting of pigment mixed with heated fluid bee-wax). Here, one painting depicts St. Pisentios, bishop of Koptos, and St. Apakir. Pisentos is dressed as a traditional sixth century Coptic bishop, while Apakir takes on the attire of a doctor. Then, in the middle of the wall and separated from the other paintings by two blocked windows, there is a figure of a standing patriarch who is possibly St. Damianos, the 35th patriarch of Alexandria. On the far end of the same wall is a depiction of St. Luke and St. Barnabas.

There are two large steps that lead into the main sanctuary, called a haykal from the Hebrew hekal. The door that separates the choir from the sanctuary, which was the work of Moses of Nisibis, is simply a wonderful piece of artwork with extraordinary inlays. This door is made of forty-two panels arranged in seven horizontal and six vertical rows. In the panels of the uppermost row, depicted, from left to right, are St. Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, St. Mark who the Evangelist and first bishop of Alexandria, Christ, the Holy Virgin, St. Severus I, patriarch Antioch, and St. Ignatius who was a bishop of Antioch. Significantly, the representations indicate respect for both the Coptic and Syrian patriarchates. Below, the second row of panels shows a repeated pattern of circles interlaced to form crosses. In each of the six fields of the third row, six linked circles are arranged in pairs, each circle containing a cross. The fourth row, though somewhat damaged, has in each panel a cross enclosed in a four-leafed shamrock with a trefoil at the junction of each leaf. The fifth row has in each panel six swastikas, each enclosed in a circle. The sixth row is a dark grille based on linked circles on a white background. A pattern of a plan cross in a double-stepped frame, the design of the cross thus filling the whole of each panel, takes of the seventh row. This door dates to the beginning of the tenth century, evidenced by a Syrian inscription written on the door itself and indicating that it was made during the patriarchates of Anba Gabriel I, the fifty-seventh patriarch of Alexandria (910-921 AD) and Anba Yuannis IV , the twenty-fifth patriarch of Antioch (902-922 AD).

The principal sanctuary itself is square and surmounted by a high cupola. Centered under a canopy that dates from the nineteenth century is an altar from the tenth century. It is made of black stone rather than white marble, which was the usual choice of the Copts. There are interesting stucco friezes, dating as far back as the tenth century, that adorn the walls that bear a striking resemblance to the stucco reliefs of Muslim workmanship. In fact, at Samarra, the Abbasid capital located north of Baghdad, there can be found very similar stucco decorations. It was probably Ibn Tulun, the governor sent to Egypt in 868, who brought this type of decoration to Cairo, which may also be seen in his mosque in Cairo. There is also similar work in the Chapel of the Forty-Nine Martyrs attached to this church.

The Chapel of the Forty-Nine Martyrs

Attached to the north side of the Church of the Holy Virgin is the Chapel of the Forty-Nine Martyrs. Moses of Nisibis was probably also responsible for this building. It is entered through the court at the north entrance of this church. In 444, forty-nine martyrs were massacred during a bloody raid by the Berbers who plundered the monasteries of Wadi al-Naturn. It is to them that the chapel is dedicated. Buried within the chapel is Anba Christodulus, the abun of Ethiopia at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Recent restorations have also revealed ancient paintings in this chapel. Work in the eastern wall of the sanctuary, where three niches are surrounded by the rich, decorative stucco work similar to that in the central sanctuary of the Church of the Holy Virgin, revealed several scenes. In the central niche is a scene of the Holy Virgin holding Christ before her. The niche to the right is adorned by a standing figure with a Syriac inscription identifying him as "St. Mark [the] Evangelist." Though the figure in the left niche is not identified by text, he might be the Patriarch Athanasius. A similar composition is found in the old Church of St. Antony (monastery) at the Red Sea. These paintings, however, are newer than the tenth century stucco decorations that surround them.


Plan of the Church of St. Mary


The Church of St. Mary (al-Sitt Mariam or Maryam, Church of the Lady Mary)

Dedicated to the Holy Virgin, as is the principal church, this structure dates from the ninth century, according to some references, or to the eleventh century, according to others, and, with the exception of the cupola over the main sanctuary, precisely reproduces the Typology of monastic churches in Tur Abdin. It is also made up of a naos, khurus and triple sanctuary that may have been built in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

The nave is entered through a portico on the south side. The level of the entrance is some three steps lower than the present grounds of the monastery courtyard. There are three more steps that connect this portico with the nave of the church. Contrary to other Coptic churches, the nave, on a rectangular plan, is transverse in relationship to the main east-west axis. This is a characteristic feature of churches in Mesopotamia.


One of the ancient churches within the monastery complex


It has a barrel vaulted roof, divided into three bays by arches resting on consoles, another Mesopotamian feature. In the west end within the floor is the marble laggan (also called a lakan). there is a central large door and two smaller side doors that lead into the choir. The central door is of inlaid woodwork and can be dated to the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. The choir is also rectangular and transverse in relation to the principal axis. It likewise has a barrel vaulted roof which is divided into three parts. The iconostasis (screen separating the choir from the sanctuary) is made of dark, inlaid wood and probably dates from the fifteenth century.

The Church of St. Honnos and Marutha

This church, which is no longer in use, is attached to the east wall of the Church of St. Mary. It dates from the beginning of the fifteenth century, a period in which the monks from the ruined monastery of St. John Kama took refuge in this monastery. St. John Kama, who's remains were transferred here, is therefore closely associated with this monastery. Saint John Kama was a native of Jebromounonson (Shubra Manethou) in the district of Sais. At an early age he was forced into marriage, but persuaded his wife to consent to a life of virginity and permit him to live the life of a monk. He was inspired by a vision to enter the Wadi al-Natrun, where he became a disciple of Saint Teroti, who inhabited a cell in the vicinity of the Monastery of Saint Macarius.

The Church of St. John the Little

The ruins of the Church dedicated to St. John the Little stand in the northeast corner of the monastery enclosure wall. Until the nineteenth century, Ethiopian monks occupied this church after their own monastery had fallen into ruins. Ethiopian monks lived in the monastic communities of Scetis as early as the twelfth century and at one time occupied a monastery dedicated to St. Elisha. After that monastery fell into ruins, they were received by the monks of the Monastery of the Holy Virgin of St. John the Little. However, that monastery also had to be abandoned because of its precarious state, and the few remaining Ethiopian monks were then welcomed by the monks in the Monastery of the Syrians.

The Refectory

West of the Church of the Holy Virgin is the ancient refectory, which is no longer in use. It is mostly rectangular (the east wall is slightly longer than the west one), with a masonry table running down its axis.


A view of the Refectory, complete with dummy monks


This table is flanked by chairs that are also of masonry. The room is roofed with a vast cupola in which small windows are opened to admit illumination. Near the east wall of the refectory is a large stone pulpit from which the sacred texts were raid and the saints' lives were revealed during the common meal.

Above the monastery grounds are, of course, other buildings of various uses. The cells of the monks and gardens occupy the eastern and southern parts of the monastery grounds. A water tower built between 1955 and 1956 in the eastern part of the monastery, now provides it with running water. A guest house including a library and museum built by Qummus Maksimus Salib in 1914 was replaced during the 1960s with additional cells, a special library building and a museum. Today, this library contains over three thousand volumes including several hundred valuable manuscripts.

Return to Christian Monasteries of Egypt

References:

TitleAuthorDatePublisherReference Number
2000 Years of Coptic ChristianityMeinardus, Otto F. A.1999American University in Cairo Press, TheISBN 977 424 5113
Christian Egypt: Coptic Art and Monuments Through Two MillenniaCapuani, Massimo1999Liturgical Press, TheISBN 0-8146-2406-5
Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries, TheAbu Salih, The Armenian, Edited and Translated by Evetts, B.T.A.2001Gorgias PressISBN 0-9715986-7-3
Coptic Monasteries: Egypt's Monastic Art and ArchitectureGabra, Gawdat2002American University in Cairo Press, TheISBN 977 424 691 8

SPIRITUAL FATHERS IN EGYPT

$
0
0
EGYPTIAN MONASTICISM

The role of Seniors in Egyptian Monasticism

by
F. Guido Dotti, Monk of Bose
please click on




In any monastic community, the presence of elders has always been an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity because it gives an opportunity for monks to confront the experience of faith, and a challenge because it forces us to create fraternal bonds between different generations. Today, especially in Europe, monastic communities are experiencing a gradual ageing, and sometimes the few young people are confronted either with a heavy workload and responsibility or they are limited to a nursing role. This may occur in a social and cultural context that no longer recognizes in old age its traditional aura of wisdom.

From the beginning of monasticism, it was clear that the issue of ‘seniority’ is not so much the respective ages of the monks, but rather the path followed in imitation of Christ. All the monastic rules include extensive guidance on ‘order in the community’(1), namely the relationship between seniors and juniors in the monastic life. The senior is one who has already experienced the roughness of the road and the mercy of the Lord, the infidelity of the disciple and fidelity of God. The senior has learned that the monastic life, as the Christian life, consists of failures and recoveries, as an Abba once said: “A senior monk was asked, ‘Abba, what are you doing here in the desert?’ The Abba replied: ‘We fall and we rise, we fall and we rise, we fall again and still we rise!’”(2).

Moreover, if we read the stories of the lives of the first hermits, we find that none of them - not even the one who is regarded as the founder of Christian monasticism, Anthony the Great - began the ascetic life alone; he has received it in the school of someone who went before him. To this fundamental anthropological and spiritual datum, we must add the realization that in a traditionally oral culture, as was the Middle East at the time of the hermits, the role of an older person in society and the family was - and in much of civilisation still is - that of the sage who, enriched by the experience of life, could provide advice and help to ‘read’ events with more discernment and lucidity.

Thus the teaching that passes from senior to junior is born of a personal relationship very demanding for both parties: the primary responsibility of the senior is to teach the disciple how to live the monastic life in the face of the problems and temptations to which every monk is exposed. On the other side, from the disciple is demanded openness of heart, patience and obedience.

But what exactly was the relationship between senior and junior, the Abba and his disciple? The fundamental reason that brought a young monk to live with an experienced senior was to learn the concrete elements of monastic life, fasting, remaining in the cell, the balance between prayer and manual work. However, the personal relationship becomes also the practical road which leads via obedience to the monastic quality of an evangelical life. “One of the brothers questioned Abba Poemen, saying, ‘The brothers who live with me, do you think I should give them orders?’ The old man said, ‘No, first do your work and if they want to live, they will look after themselves.’ The brother said: ‘But, father, it is they themselves who want me to command them.’ The old man said: ‘No, be their model, not their lawgiver’.”(3) The senior, the experienced monk, capable of discerning spirits, constitutes a living rule. He remains at the side of his disciple and, by his presence rather than by his word, leads his disciple gradually to spiritual maturity. In this way the disciple, having in his turn become an experienced monk, is able to help others younger than himself.

This is a way of maturing available to all, even to those who know that they do not have the necessary strength in themselves. ‘What can I do to my soul?’ a brother asked Abba Paesios, ‘because it is insensitive and does not fear God?’ Paesios answered, ‘Go, join up with someone who fears God. By living with him, you will yourself learn to fear God.’ (4) This way of learning occurs also in monastic teaching: ‘If you cannot manage by yourself, attach yourself to someone who lives according to the gospel of Christ and you will advance with him. Either listen yourself or put yourself under someone else who does. Be strong and be called Elijah, or else listen to someone else who is strong and you will be called Elisha.’ (5)

In obedience to a senior the monastic life of the young monk takes the right form and colour, through following the furrow ploughed by those who have gone before. This also allows the junior to avoid the excesses typical for that age, to shake free of the most dangerous enemy, selfwill, and thus concentrate on the reality of daily struggle: “The seniors used to say, ‘If you see a young man rising up to heaven by his own will, seize him by the foot and bring him down again, for that is what he needs’.” (6) This is also the witness of the one who may be called the senior par excellence, Anthony: “I know monks who, having overcome many trials, fell into spiritual pride because they had placed their hope in their own works and had neglected the advice of the one who says, ‘Ask your father and he will teach you’.”(7)

Falling after overcoming many trials’ shows the sterility of a monastic life lived without the awareness of one’s own limitations and without the help of a senior. However, as we have seen, this support is not meant to last forever and every disciple is called to achieve a degree of spiritual maturity such that he can live his life without the regular support of a brother and that, in turn, he can help a younger brother. Any Abba, in fact, has first been a ‘novice’ and has travelled the path toward maturity whose first step is living in company with a senior - a path that some monks, determined to live alone, have wished to travel before being adequately equipped to do so without disaster. Furthermore, submission of one’s own will by means of obedience to a brother is considered by the Fathers of the desert to have a value of its own, not merely as an instrument that can be abandoned once training in monastic life has been completed.

This is a lesson that I learned viva voce from a modern father of the desert, during my first pilgrimage to the monastery of St. Macarius in Egypt. Having found that there were several hermits living in the vicinity of the great cenobitic monastery, I asked F. Wadid by what criteria the father of the monastery gave the blessing to a monk to live the eremitical life. ‘It is very simple,’ he said. ‘It is enough that the monk knows how to pray. And this is seen in his prayer being heard, for this means that it has been accepted by God.’ However, this acceptance of prayer is not judged by human measurements or by the greatness of some ‘miracle’. The only essential thing a Christian must ask in prayer, with the certainty of being heard, is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit who can discern what the will of God is for that person and for others, and can distinguish this from their personal desires and their own will. ‘The whole Christian life,’ continued F. Wadid, ‘is a continual effort to arrive at the point of saying to the Father with Jesus, “Not my will but yours,” and in this search, the senior brothers are a great help. Therefore it is only when a monk receives the gift of “answered prayer” is to say, the Spirit of discernment, that he can live as a hermit, depriving himself of the daily support of the brothers, without falling prey to illusions. And what is more,’ concluded my interlocutor, ‘he will be prepared to leave the solitude of his hermitage if younger brothers need his spiritual guidance.’

This is a very concrete example of the balance between community life and the life of solitude, between spiritual maturity and support: seniors and juniors enrich one another by the opening of the heart, whose main purpose is to learn to fight against the temptation of self-will and to discern the nature and quality of thoughts that fill a monk’s heart. It is a shared responsibility within cenobitic communities, as the writings of the Pachomian tradition show: “There are those who are attentive only to themselves. In their desire to live by the precepts of God, they say constantly, ‘What can I have in common with others? As for me, I seek to serve God and do his will; what others do does not concern me.’ However, once we have given an account of our own lives, we will also be accountable for those who have been entrusted to us. Heads of houses must bear this in mind no less than superiors of monasteries, and even all the brothers who are part of the People of God, for all must bear one another’s burdens to fulfil the law of Christ ... God has given us a deposit, the lives of our brothers, and it is in looking after them that we hope for future rewards.” (8)

Furthermore, submission to a senior is the keystone of fraternal relations as much in the eremitical life as in the cenobitic. The words of the Abba – whether this is the spiritual father of a single disciple or the guide of a monastery or a senior among his brethren, with whom the Abbot has seen fit to share his responsibility as father9 - enjoy a special authority which demands respect and obedience from disciples but also from visitors and anyone else who approaches him for spiritual advice. Indeed, the influence of seniors radiates far beyond the walls of their cells, as is shown by the insistence with which disciples and pilgrims ask, ‘Abba, give me a word’.

Here it is worth recalling that if this influence persists right up to our time, it is precisely due to the daily relationships between seniors and their disciples. If all the hermits had lived their entire lives locked up in their caves, never meeting and sharing advice, we would not today possess this vast wealth of sayings. Born in a specific circumstances, through the relationship between spiritual father and son, and in an atmosphere of submission of both to the will of God, these words were gathered by a first group of listeners and witnesses as effective ‘actionsayings’, as teachings full of meaning also for very different times and situations.

During the history of monasticism, this has made a significant contribution, especially to new communities which had not yet among their members ‘ancients of days’, through the possibility of benefiting from the spiritual wealth of ‘seniors’. It may seem to us paradoxical that hermits have become ‘masters’ for monks and even for whole communities that did not lead a monastic life. Yet it is precisely the unique and basic character of the fraternal relations lived out in the desert between seniors and younger monks that effectively provided - and continues to provide - very valuable guidance on the fundamental elements of Christian life as a life of community. These are memories capable of spreading the love of God and the love of human beings, the source and summit of lived community, to the ends of the earth.





(1) See, for example, RB 63.
(2) Anonymous saying, quoted by T. Colliander, Il cammino dell’asceta (Brescia, 1987), p. 55.
(3 )Poemen 188.
(4) Cf. Poemen 65.
(5) Pachomius, Catéchèse à un moine rancunier.
(6) Nau 111.
(7) Anthony 37. (8) Book of Horsesios, 8 and 11.
(9) Cf. RB 21.3.

RELATED POSTS



SEPARATED FROM ALL AND UNITED TO ALL 
by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: HERMIT LIFE IN THE CHRISTIAN EAST












G.K CHESTERTON'S "MOST TERRIBLE THING" - WORSE THAN SIN!! by Fr James Schall S.J.

$
0
0

Much of the world that calls itself “modern” does not want to know or even debate whether something is true or not.

Relativism, the claim that no truth can exist or be established, is the ruling assumption of the culture. Relativism itself, of course, is a claim to be “true.” That is, it is “true” that nothing is “true.” Any debate about truth would presuppose that it exists and is worthwhile pursuing. Any debate or dialogue concerning truth implies that objective standards exist whereby we can distinguish between true and false, right and wrong. A debate also presumes that it makes a difference which side is right and which wrong. Otherwise, why bother?

Debating in practice can and often does lead to skepticism if little effort is made to decide the truth at issue. The world often seems to be a mass of conflicting and contradictory opinions, none of which is worth much. Dialogue or debate, however, is not for its own sake. It ought not to be merely an exhibition of rhetorical facility or eloquence, though these have a place. It is for the sake of resolving an issue by having all sides consider what is at stake. It assumes that error has something to be said for it. The point of error can be stated clearly. It also grants that, sometimes, the best that we can do is to come to a reasonable opinion that can provide for us a basis of judgment and action.

Today, we are largely indifferent to truth claims. Religions and philosophies are chosen mostly for tradition, good feelings, sociability, and support, economic and spiritual. People from all varieties of nations, religions, and ways of life are thrown together in our cities and towns through immigration, media facilities, moral choices, and economic exchanges. They want to know whether we get along with everyone else, whether what anyone holds is true or not. It is best not to ask “truth” questions. Few will tolerate any judgment on “their” option. Much state law will enforce this “no-truth” assumption.

Truth, in fact, is considered to be a threat to the public order. In this context, if peace is desired, ideas should have no consequences. The older idea that we first knew whether something is true or not before we act on it is replaced by the view that “truth” has no relation to action. Freedom means that truth is irrelevant. The only thing that is necessary is whether we are allowed to “do” what we think, whatever it is. The state is designed to guarantee us this freedom as a “right.” Morals or virtues, as such, do not exist. They imply a restriction on avenues of living that we may choose to pursue. Thus, the truth will “not make us free.” Only freedom from the truth will make us free.

In this context, what is the place of Catholicism in the modern world? By its origins and traditions it stands on the side of veritas, truth. Truth is the mind confirming of what is that it is. In the Catholic understanding, revelation is a claim to truth. It is directed to reason. But if there is no “truth,” revelation and its content become just another dangerous view or sect. Evangelization, the making known of this truth, presupposes that what is made known to the nations is a “truth” that they do not and could not possess without it. But it is something designed for all nations. Men are not free not to know it. Its authority is not merely human. It is what God designed as everyone’s own good.

This truth is the "mission” the apostles were sent to complete, the one recent popes have forcefully reiterated. In recent decades, though John Paul II and Benedict XVI reversed some of this, the face of Catholicism has often been turned not so much to its own truth but to the truth it finds outside of itself. In this sense, the Church has become a center for and promoter of what is called “dialogue.” Before we can talk of what someone lacks, the theory goes, we must first understand what is there. Not everything is contained in revelation. Many things are left to men to figure out by themselves. Many good and true things are found in the polities and religions of the world. These truths can be identified and even defined or established. But this process assumes that a standard of truth, both in reason and revelation, does exist.


In his essay, “The Diabolist,” Chesterton wrote: “I am becoming orthodox because I have come, rightly or wrongly, after stretching my brain till it bursts, to the old belief that heresy is worse even than sin. An error is more menacing than a crime, for an error begets crimes...” Needless to say, not only has “heresy” fallen out of fashion, but with it orthodoxy and sin itself. The only “sins” that we find to chastise today are “ism” sins, those that are politically defined. They propose a “corporate” guilt. Their only “cure” is a reconstruction of society according to some ideological formula. They do not really deal with an individual person’s actual sins or with his belief or action. Culpability, if such still exists, is corporate in nature. It requires not change of heart and confession but change in system.

Vatican II was well known for not entering into any heresy issues. Its various documents strove to see what is positive in other religions or philosophies. It did not have much of bad to say about anybody. And while the world is considerably more prosperous than ever before, we would be hard pressed to maintain that it is “better,” certainly not that it is “sinless.”

Christian revelation is based in the notion that Christ, true God and true man, was sent by the Father into the world, at a definite time and place, with the purpose of redeeming our sins. If there were no sins among us, His coming was in vain. Thus at least part of his mission was to send the Spirit who would “convict the world of sin” (John 16: 8). In a sense, it was easier to understand what Christ was about in a Jewish, Greek, or Roman background of articulated virtue and vice that most people understood than in a relativist world for which sin is incomprehensible.

To talk of sin to those who deny that there is such a thing presents a rather different problem. Abortion, euthanasia, divorce, active gay living, and other such acts that were normally called “sins,” are now called “rights.” Since the modern meaning of “rights” is to be free to choose our own “values,” it becomes enormously difficult to call a “right” a “sin.” In one sense, no matter what we call something it remains what it is. Without being “consequentialists,” that is, without holding that a thing is good or bad depending on the consequences, we can certainly say that these “rights” have consequences.

Worldwide abortion “rights” have resulted in a huge population loss and the destruction of many more girl babies than male babies. We now even question the future existence of many nations with low birth rates, rates that are a direct result of contraception and abortion. When a people refuses to have its own children, even destroys them, its disorder of soul is very basic.

Plato had said that the worst thing that could happen to us was to have a “lie” in our souls about reality. He meant both a lie that we accepted as true from others and a lie that we put in our own souls in order to justify our actions. Plato’s words were precise. The “lie” in our soul is chosen to be there in order to allow us to do what we want. What is also implies is that the consequences of our “lie” will manifest themselves in the world whether we like it or not.

In this sense, we are in dire need of sorting things out. The worst thing we can do to a sinner is to tell him that his sin is no sin, but a “right” or a “liberty.” Once the sinner is told that what he does is all right, he has little possibility of rectifying himself. He no longer sees the Church as an abiding beacon of truth that stands firm even if he rejects it. If the Church is not clear about what is true, the sinner has scarce hope of finding his way out of whatever evil he has chosen.



The great service that Catholicism is designed to perform in the modern world is to recover its voice. Chesterton was right. Heresy and error are more dangerous than sin. We see this everyday but we are afraid to say so. The sacrament of penance was provided to deal with sin. But it was the magisterium that was established to deal with error, sin, and heresy. When this latter purpose is neglected, the former purpose in today’s world becomes practically unutilized. Few go to confession because of their sins. No one sins because no one knows the connection between ideas and acts. It is ideas that originate and justify acts. It is not enough to talk of love of neighbor as if that had no structure or content to it. In today’s world, to tell someone to “love” someone can mean almost anything. Many a sin has some skewered idea of love at its origin. It can include those acts that undermine any possibility of love in the Christian sense.

The Catholic Church is the last bastion of truth in the modern world in so far as it hands down what it was taught and upholds the reason that alone can receive it. It is often chastised for holding what have come to be unpopular truths. But this upholding is one of its primary purposes for existing. It is right to prefer discussion to turmoil and violence. But we also knows that many cannot hear it and many others will not listen to it.

We are often covert “progressives” who think that, in this world, the truth will win out. Scripture often seems to suggest the opposite. This means that the place of the Catholic Church in the modern world is there where truth is affirmed. It will often be hated for this service to the world. And it is hated. But it itself is to be judged, as it knows, by its persistence in keeping before us the truths that were revealed to it. We have even come to reject the light of reason to which this transcendent truth addressed itself and brought out in our own understanding of real things.


Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. is a teacher, writer, and philosopher. Most recently, he was Professor of Political Philosophy in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, from which he retired in 2012.


JULY 11th FEAST OF ST BENEDICT OF (by the late Abbot Primate, Dom Jerome Theisen OSB)

$
0
0



On the occasion of the dedication of the rebuilt monastery of Monte Cassino in 1964, Pope Paul VI proclaimed St. Benedict the principal, heavenly patron of the whole of Europe. The title piously exaggerates the place of Benedict but in many respects it is true. St. Benedict did not establish the monastery of Monte Cassino in order to preserve the learning of the ages, but in fact the monasteries that later followed his Rule were places where learning and manuscripts were preserved. For some six centuries or more the Christian culture of medieval Europe was nearly identical with the monastic centers of piety and learning.

Saint Benedict was not the founder of Christian monasticism, since he lived two and a half to three centuries after its beginnings in Egypt, Palestine, and Asia Minor. He became a monk as a young man and thereafter learned the tradition by associating with monks and reading the monastic literature. He was caught up in the monastic movement but ended by channeling the stream into new and fruitful ways. This is evident in the Rule which he wrote for monasteries and which was and is still used in many monasteries and convents around the world.

 [Ms. St. Benedict from Cleves Book of Hours, ca. 1440] Tradition teaches that St. Benedict lived from 480 to 547, though we cannot be sure that these dates are historically accurate. His biographer, St. Gregory the Great, pope from 590 to 604, does not record the dates of his birth and death, though he refers to a Rule written by Benedict. Scholars debate the dating of the Rule though they seem to agree that it was written in the second third of the sixth century.

Saint Gregory wrote about St. Benedict in his Second Book of Dialogues, but his account of the life and miracles of Benedict cannot be regarded as a biography in the modern sense of the term. Gregory's purpose in writing Benedict's life was to edify and to inspire, not to seek out the particulars of his daily life. Gregory sought to show that saints of God, particularly St. Benedict, were still operative in the Christian Church in spite of all the political and religious chaos present in the realm. At the same time it would be inaccurate to claim that Gregory presented no facts about Benedict's life and works.

According to Gregory's Dialogues Benedict was born in Nursia, a village high in the mountains northeast of Rome. His parents sent him to Rome for classical studies but he found the life of the eternal city too degenerate for his tastes. Consequently he fled to a place southeast of Rome called Subiaco where he lived as a hermit for three years tended by the monk Romanus.

[St. Benedict at Vicovaro, Ms Grammont, ca. 1450]The hermit, Benedict, was then discovered by a group of monks who prevailed upon him to become their spiritual leader. His regime soon became too much for the lukewarm monks so they plotted to poison him. Gregory recounts the tale of Benedict's rescue; when he blessed the pitcher of poisoned wine, it broke into many pieces. Thereafter he left the undisciplined monks.

Benedict left the wayward monks and established twelve monasteries with twelve monks each in the area south of Rome. Later, perhaps in 529, he moved to Monte Cassino, about eighty miles southeast of Rome; there he destroyed the pagan temple dedicated to Apollo and built his premier monastery. It was there too that he wrote the Rule for the monastery of Monte Cassino though he envisioned that it could be used elsewhere.

The thirty-eight short chapters of the Second Book of Dialogues contain accounts of Benedict's life and miracles. Some chapters recount his ability to read other persons' minds; other chapters tell of his miraculous works, e.g., making water flow from rocks, sending a disciple to walk on the water, making oil continue to flow from a flask. The miracle stories echo the events of certain prophets of Israel as well as happenings in the life of Jesus. The message is clear: Benedict's holiness mirrors the saints and prophets of old and God has not abandoned his people; he continues to bless them with holy persons.

Benedict is viewed as a monastic leader, not a scholar. Still he probably read Latin rather well, an ability that gave him access to the works of Cassian and other monastic writings, both rules and sayings. The Rule is the sole known example of Benedict's writing, but it manifests his genius to crystallize the best of the monastic tradition and to pass it on to the European West.


Gregory presents Benedict as the model of a saint who flees temptation to pursue a life of attention to God. Through a balanced pattern of living and praying Benedict reached the point where he glimpsed the glory of God. Gregory recounts a vision that Benedict received toward the end of his life: In the dead of night he suddenly beheld a flood of light shining down from above more brilliant than the sun, and with it every trace of darkness cleared away. According to his own description, the whole world was gathered up before his eyes "in what appeared to be a single ray of light" (ch. 34). St. Benedict, the monk par excellence, led a monastic life that reached the vision of God.





Laeta Quies

Laeta quies [*dies] magni ducis,
Dona ferens novae lucis,
Hodie recolitur.

Caris datur piae menti,
Corde sonet in ardenti,
Quidquid foris promitur.

Hunc per callem orientis 
Admiremur ascendentis
Patriarchae speciem.

Amplum semen magnae prolis
Illum fecit instar solis
Abrahae persimilem.

Corvum cernis ministrantem,
Hinc Eliam latitantem
Specu nosce parvulo.

Elisaeus dignoscatur,
Cum securis revocatur
De torrentis alveo.

Illum Joseph candor morum, 
Illum Jacob futurorum
Mens effecit conscia.

Ipse memor suae gentis,
Nos perducat in manentis.
Semper Christi gaudia.

Amen. (T.P. Alleluia.)


Joyful rest [or *day] of our leader, that brings the gift of a new light, we commemorate you today.

Grace is given the loving soul, may our ardent heart be united to the songs of our lips.

By the radiant way going up to the east, let us admire our Father rising to heaven, equal to the patriarchs.

His innumerable posterity, figure of the sun, made him like to Abraham.

See the crow serving him and recognize hence Elias hiding in a little cave.

Recognize Eliseus, when he bids return the axe from beneath the current.

It is Joseph through his life without stain; 
it is Jacob bringing future things to mind.

May he be mindful of his people, and may he lead us till we behold with him the eternal joys of Christ.



-- "Supplement for the Order of Saint Benedict" (Saint Andrew Daily Missal, Brugge: Desclee de Brouwer & Co., 1957, p. 21-22).

*Laeta dies, if the feast is transferred to another date and on 11 July.

This site will grow as the day progresses.
Happy Feastday to all disciples of St Benedict

HOLY THURSDAY AT MONREALE by Father Romano Guardini

$
0
0

Holy Week at Monreale,” the Author: Romano Guardini
An extraordinary lesson on the liturgy, drawn from life and written by the theologian who was Joseph Ratzinger’s instructor. It’s a short text translated from the original German for the first time 

by Sandro Magister





ROMA, April 12, 2006 – In Saint Peter’s basilica in Rome, Benedict XVI is celebrating his first Holy Week as pope. Meanwhile, in another ancient and grandiose basilica, that of Monreale in Sicily, the Paschal rites find a “guide” very close to him in point of view: Romano Guardini, the German theologian from whom the young Joseph Ratzinger learned the most in the area of liturgy. 

Guardini visited the basilica of Monreale in 1929, and told the story in his “Voyage in Sicily.” 


The present archbishop of Monreale, Cataldo Naro, took up the original German version of Guardini’s account, translated it, and provided it for the faithful within a pastoral letter with the title “Let Us Love Our Church.” It is like a guide for today’s liturgical celebrations. 

In the text, the great German theologian wrote of all his amazement at the beauty of the Monreale basilica and the splendor of its mosaics. 

But above all, he wrote of how impressed he was with the faithful who attended the rites, and their “living-in-the-gaze,” with the “compenetration” of these people and the figures in the mosaics, which draw life and movement from the assembly. 

“It seemed to him,” archbishop Naro notes in his pastoral letter, “that those people celebrated the liturgy in an exemplary way: through vision.” 

The basilica of Monreale, a masterpiece of twelfth century Norman art, has its walls completely covered with gold-enameled mosaics depicting the stories of the Old and New Testaments, angels and saints, prophets and apostles, bishops and kings, and the Christ “Pantocrator,” ruler of all, who from the apse enfolds the Christian people in his light, his gaze, his power. 

Here follows a translation of Guardini’s account of his visit to Monreale, excerpted from his “Reise nach Sizilien [Voyage in Sicily]”. 

The German original is in Romano Guardini, “Spiegel und Gleichnis. Bilder und Gedanken [Mirror and Parable: Images and Thoughts]”, Grünewald-Schöningh, Mainz-Paderbon, 1990, pp. 158-161. 


“Then it became clear to me what the foundation of real liturgical piety is...” 

by Romano Guardini 


Today I saw something grandiose: Monreale. I am full of gratitude for its existence. The day was rainy. When we arrived there – it was Holy Thursday – the solemn Mass had proceeded beyond the consecration. For the blessing of the holy oils, the archbishop was seated beneath the triumphal arch of the choir. The ample space was crowded. Everywhere people were sitting in their places, silently watching. 

What should I say about the splendor of this place? At first, the visitor’s glance sees a basilica of harmonious proportions. Then it perceives a movement within its structure, which is enriched with something new, a desire for transcendence that moves through it to the point of passing beyond it; but all of this culminates in that splendid luminosity. 

So, a brief historical moment. It did not last long, but was supplanted by something else entirely. But this moment, although brief, was of an ineffable beauty. 

There was gold all over the walls. Figures rose above figures, in all of the vaults and in all of the arches. They stood out from the golden background as though from a star-studded sky. Everywhere radiant colors were swimming in the gold. 

Yet the light was attenuated. The gold slept, and all the colors slept. They could be seen there, waiting. And what their splendor would be like if it shone forth! Only here and there did a border gleam, and an aura of muted light trailed along the blue mantle of the figure of Christ in the apse. 

When they brought the holy oils to the sanctuary, and the procession, accompanied by the insistent melody of an ancient hymn, wound through that throng of figures, the basilica sprang back to life. 

Its forms began to move. Responding to the solemn procession and the movement of vestments and colors along the walls and through the arches, the spaces began to move. The spaces came forward to meet the listening ear and the eye rapt in contemplation. 

The crowd sat and watched. The women were wearing veils. The colors of their garments and shawls were waiting for the sun to make them shine again. The men’s faces were distinguished and handsome. Almost no one was reading. All were living in the gaze, all engaged in contemplation. 

Then it it became clear to me what the foundation of real liturgical piety is: the capacity to find the “sacred” within the image and its dynamism. 

* * *

Monreale, Holy Saturday. When we arrived, the sacred ceremony had come to the blessing of the Paschal candle. Immediately afterward, the deacon solemnly advanced along the principal nave, bearing the Lumen Christi. 

The Exultet was sung in front of the main altar. The bishop was seated to the right of the altar, on an elevated throne made of stone, where he sat listening. After the Exultet came the readings from the prophets, and I rediscovered the sublime significance of those mosaic images. 

Then there was the blessing of the baptismal water in the middle of the church. All the assistants were seated around the font, with the bishop in the center and the people standing around them. The babies were brought forward – one could see the emotion and pride in their parents – and the bishop baptized them. 

Everything was so familiar. The people’s conduct was simultaneously detached and devout, and when anyone spoke to another person standing nearby, it was not a disturbance. And so the sacred ceremony continued on its way. It moved through almost every part of that great church: now it took place in the choir, now in the nave, now under the triumphal arch. The spaciousness and majesty of the place embraced every movement and every figure, commingling them and uniting them together. 

Every now and then a ray of sunlight pierced through the vault, and a golden smile spread across the space above. And anywhere a subdued color lay in wait on a vestment or veil, it was reawakened by the gold that spread to every corner, revealed in its true power and caught up in an harmonious and intricate design that filled the heart with happiness. 

The most beautiful thing was the people. The women with their veils, the men with their cloaks around their shoulders. Everywhere could be seen distinguished faces and a serene bearing. Almost no one was reading, almost no one stooped over in private prayer. Everyone was watching. 

The sacred ceremony lasted for more than four hours, but the participation was always lively. There are different means of prayerful participation. One is realized by listening, speaking, gesturing. But the other takes place through watching. The first way is a good one, and we northern Europeans know no other. But we have lost something that was still there at Monreale: the capacity for living-in-the-gaze, for resting in the act of seeing, for welcoming the sacred in the form and event, by contemplating them. 

I was about to leave, when suddenly I found all of those eyes turned toward me. Almost frightened, I looked away, as if I were embarrassed at peering into those eyes that had been gazing upon the altar.


An excerpt from "Glory to God for All Things" by Fr Stephen Freeman, an Orthodox priest in America. The post is called, "The Struggle to be Real"

In the life of the Church, there is a primary “mythic” experience: the Liturgy. Liturgical action is more than an antiquated manner for having a Church meeting. It is the ritual, sacramental and symbolic enactment of a Reality that might otherwise not be seen, understood, or experienced. That same reality, presented in a non-mythic manner, would be less accessible and probably misunderstood. Tolkien was right: we must become mythopathic.


The attraction of Lewis’ and Tokien’s writings are witness to the fact that there is a deep mythopathic part even in the modern heart. This is not a modern phenomenon - it is a human phenomenon. It is the anti-mythic character of modern culture that sets it apart from all human cultures that have come before. The reduction of the world to a narrow, materialist understanding of fact, is simply a world unable to communicate God

.




SENSUS FIDEI IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH: A VATICAN CONTRIBUTION

$
0
0



SENSUS FIDEI
IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH*
(2014)





CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter One: The sensus fidei in Scripture and Tradition

1. Biblical teaching

a) Faith as response to the Word of God
b) The personal and ecclesial dimensions of faith
c) The capacity of believers to know and witness to the truth

2. The development of the idea, and its place in the history of the Church

a) Patristic period
b) Medieval period
c) Reformation and post-Reformation period
d) 19th century
e) 20th century

Chapter Two: The sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer

1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith

2. Manifestations of the sensus fidei in the personal life of believers

Chapter Three: The sensus fidei fidelium in the life of the Church

1. The sensus fidei and the development of Christian doctrine and practice

a) Retrospective and prospective aspects of the sensus fidei
b) The contribution of the laity to the sensus fidelium

2. The sensus fidei and the magisterium

a) The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium
b) The magisterium nurtures, discerns and judges the sensus fidelium 
c) Reception

3. The sensus fidei and theology

a) Theologians depend on the sensus fidelium
b) Theologians reflect on the sensus fidelium

4. Ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei

Chapter Four: How to discern authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei

1. Dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei

a) Participation in the life of the Church
b) Listening to the word of God
c) Openness to reason
d) Adherence to the magisterium
e) Holiness – humility, freedom and joy
f) Seeking the edification of the Church

2. Applications

a) The sensus fidei and popular religiosity
b) The sensus fidei and public opinion
c) Ways of consulting the faithful

Conclusion

* PRELIMINARY NOTE

In its quinquennium of 2009-2014, the International Theological Commission studied the nature of sensus fidei and its place in the life of the Church. The work took place in a subcommission presided by Msgr. Paul McPartlan and composed of the following members: Fr. Serge Thomas Bonino, O.P. (Secretary General); Sr. Sara Butler, M.S.B.T.; Rev. Antonio Castellano, S.D.B.; Rev. Adelbert Denaux; Msgr. Tomislav Ivanĉić; Bishop Jan Liesen; Rev. Leonard Santedi Kinkupu, Doctor Thomas Söding, and Msgr. Jerzy Szymik.

The general discussions of this theme were held in numerous meetings of the subcommission and during the Plenary Sessions of the same International Theological Commission held in Rome between 2011 and 2014. The text “Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church” was approved in forma specifica by the majority of members of commission, by a written vote, and was then submitted to its President, Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who authorized its publication.

Introduction

1. By the gift of the Holy Spirit, ‘the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father’ and bears witness to the Son (Jn 15:26), all of the baptised participate in the prophetic office of Jesus Christ, ‘the faithful and true witness’ (Rev 3:14). They are to bear witness to the Gospel and to the apostolic faith in the Church and in the world. The Holy Spirit anoints them and equips them for that high calling, conferring on them a very personal and intimate knowledge of the faith of the Church. In the first letter of St John, the faithful are told: ‘you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge’, ‘the anointing that you received from [Christ] abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you’, ‘his anointing teaches you about all things’ (1Jn 2:20, 27).

2. As a result, the faithful have an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, which enables them to recognise and endorse authentic Christian doctrine and practice, and to reject what is false. That supernatural instinct, intrinsically linked to the gift of faith received in the communion of the Church, is called the sensus fidei, and it enables Christians to fulfil their prophetic calling. In his first Angelus address, Pope Francis quoted the words of a humble, elderly woman he once met: ‘If the Lord did not forgive everything, the world would not exist’; and he commented with admiration: ‘that is the wisdom which the Holy Spirit gives’.[1] The woman’s insight is a striking manifestation of the sensus fidei, which, as well as enabling a certain discernment with regard to the things of faith, fosters true wisdom and gives rise, as here, to proclamation of the truth. It is clear, therefore, that the sensus fidei is a vital resource for the new evangelisation to which the Church is strongly committed in our time.[2]

3. As a theological concept, the sensus fidei refers to two realities which are distinct though closely connected, the proper subject of one being the Church, ‘pillar and bulwark of the truth’ (1Tim 3:15),[3] while the subject of the other is the individual believer, who belongs to the Church through the sacraments of initiation, and who, by means of regular celebration of the Eucharist, in particular, participates in her faith and life. On the one hand, the sensus fidei refers to the personal capacity of the believer, within the communion of the Church, to discern the truth of faith. On the other hand, the sensus fidei refers to a communal and ecclesial reality: the instinct of faith of the Church herself, by which she recognises her Lord and proclaims his word. The sensus fidei in this sense is reflected in the convergence of the baptised in a lived adhesion to a doctrine of faith or to an element of Christian praxis. This convergence (consensus) plays a vital role in the Church: the consensus fidelium is a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith.[4]In the present document, we use the term, sensus fidei fidelis, to refer to the personal aptitude of the believer to make an accurate discernment in matters of faith, and sensus fidei fidelium to refer to the Church’s own instinct of faith. According to the context, sensus fidei refers to either the former or the latter, and in the latter case the term, sensus fidelium, is also used.

4. The importance of the sensus fidei in the life of the Church was strongly emphasised by the Second Vatican Council. Banishing the caricature of an active hierarchy and a passive laity, and in particular the notion of a strict separation between the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) and the learning Church (Ecclesia discens), the council taught that all the baptised participate in their own proper way in the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest and king. In particular, it taught that Christ fulfills his prophetic office not only by means of the hierarchy but also via the laity.

5. In the reception and application of the council’s teaching on this topic, however, many questions arise, especially in relation to controversies regarding various doctrinal or moral issues. What exactly is the sensus fidei and how can it be identified? What are the biblical sources for this idea and how does the sensus fidei function in the tradition of the faith? How does the sensus fidei relate to the ecclesiastical magisterium of the pope and the bishops, and to theology?[5] What are the conditions for an authentic exercise of the sensus fidei? Is the sensus fidei something different from the majority opinion of the faithful in a given time or place, and if so how does it differ from the latter? All of these questions require answers if the idea of the sensus fidei is to be understood more fully and used more confidently in the Church today.

6. The purpose of the present text is not to give an exhaustive account of the sensus fidei, but simply to clarify and deepen some important aspects of this vital notion in order to respond to certain issues, particularly regarding how to identify the authentic sensus fidei in situations of controversy, when for example there are tensions between the teaching of the magisterium and views claiming to express the sensus fidei. Accordingly, it will first consider the biblical sources for the idea of the sensus fidei and the way in which this idea has developed and functioned in the history and tradition of the Church (chapter one). The nature of the sensus fidei fidelis will then be considered, together with the manifestations of the latter in the personal life of the believer (chapter two). The document will then reflect on the sensus fidei fidelium, that is, the sensus fidei in its ecclesial form, considering first its role in the development of Christian doctrine and practice, then its relationship to the magisterium and to theology, respectively, and then also its importance for ecumenical dialogue (chapter three). Finally, it will seek to identify dispositions needed for an authentic participation in the sensus fidei - they constitute criteria for a discernment of the authentic sensus fidei - and will reflect on some applications of its findings to the concrete life of the Church (chapter four).

Chapter 1: The sensus fidei in Scripture and Tradition

7. The phrase, sensus fidei, is found neither in the Scriptures nor in the formal teaching of the Church until Vatican II. However, the idea that the Church as a whole is infallible in her belief, since she is the body and bride of Christ (cf. 1Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12; 5:21-32; Rev 21:9), and that all of her members have an anointing that teaches them (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27), being endowed with the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 16:13), is everywhere apparent from the very beginnings of Christianity. The present chapter will trace the main lines of the development of this idea, first in Scripture and then in the subsequent history of the Church.

1. Biblical teaching

a) Faith as response to the Word of God

8. Throughout the New Testament, faith is the fundamental and decisive response of human persons to the Gospel. Jesus proclaims the Gospel in order to bring people to faith: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’ (Mk 1:15). Paul reminds the early Christians of his apostolic proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to renew and deepen their faith: ‘Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you - unless you have come to believe in vain’ (1Cor 15:1-2). The understanding of faith in the New Testament is rooted in the Old Testament, and especially in the faith of Abram, who trusted completely in God’s promises (Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11,17). This faith is a free answer to the proclamation of the word of God, and as such it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be received by those who truly believe (cf. 1Cor 12:3). The ‘obedience of faith’ (Rom 1:5) is the result of God’s grace, who frees human beings and gives them membership in the Church (Gal 5:1,13).

9. The Gospel calls forth faith because it is not simply the conveying of religious information but the proclamation of the word of God, and ‘the power of God for salvation’, which is truly to be received (Rom 1:16-17; cf. Mt 11:15; Lk 7:22 [Is 26:19; 29:18; 35:5-6; 61:1-11]). It is the Gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24), the ‘revelation of the mystery’ of God (Rom 16:25), and the ‘word of truth’ (Eph 1:13). The Gospel has a substantial content: the coming of God’s Kingdom, the resurrection and exaltation of the crucified Jesus Christ, the mystery of salvation and glorification by God in the Holy Spirit. The Gospel has a strong subject: Jesus himself, the Word of God, who sends out his apostles and their followers, and it takes the direct form of inspired and authorised proclamation by words and deeds. To receive the Gospel requires a response of the whole person ‘with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ (Mk 12:31). This is the response of faith, which is ‘the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’ (Heb 11:1).

10. ‘“Faith” is both an act of belief or trust and also that which is believed or confessed, fides qua and fides quae, respectively. Both aspects work together inseparably, since trust is adhesion to a message with intelligible content, and confession cannot be reduced to mere lip service, it must come from the heart.’[6] The Old and New Testaments clearly show that the form and content of faith belong together.

b) The personal and ecclesial dimensions of faith

11. The scriptures show that the personal dimension of faith is integrated into the ecclesial dimension; both singular and plural forms of the first person are found: ‘we believe’ (cf. Gal 2:16) and ‘I believe’ (cf. Gal 2:19-20). In his letters, Paul recognises the faith of believers as both a personal and an ecclesial reality. He teaches that everyone who confesses that ‘Jesus is Lord’ is inspired by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). The Spirit incorporates every believer into the body of Christ and gives him or her a special role in order to build up the Church (cf. 1Cor 12:4-27). In the letter to the Ephesians, confession of the one and only God is connected with the reality of a life of faith in the Church: ‘There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all’ (Eph 4:4-6).

12. In its personal and ecclesial dimensions, faith has the following essential aspects:

i) Faith requires repentance. In the proclamation of the prophets of Israel and of John the Baptist (cf. Mk 1:4), as well as in the preaching of the Good News by Jesus himself (Mk 1:14f.) and in the mission of the Apostles (Acts 2:38-42; 1Thess 1:9f.), repentance means the confession of one’s sins and the beginning of a new life lived within the community of the covenant of God (cf. Rom 12:1f.).

ii) Faith is both expressed in and nourished by prayer and worship (leiturgia). Prayer can take various forms - begging, imploring, praising, thanksgiving - and the confession of faith is a special form of prayer. Liturgical prayer, and pre-eminently the celebration of the Eucharist, has from the very beginning been essential to the life of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42). Prayer takes place both in public (cf. 1Cor 14) and in private (cf. Mt 6:5). For Jesus, the Our Father (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:1-4) expresses the essence of faith. It is a ‘summary of the whole Gospel’.[7] Significantly, its language is that of ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our’.

iii) Faith brings knowledge. The one who believes is able to recognise the truth of God (cf. Phil 3:10f.). Such knowledge springs from reflection on the experience of God, based on revelation and shared in the community of believers. This is the witness of both Old and New Testament Wisdom theology (Ps 111:10; cf. Prov 1:7; 9:10; Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22).

iv) Faith leads to confession (marturia). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, believers know the one in whom they have placed their trust (cf. 2Tim 1:12), and are able to give an account of the hope that is in them (cf. 1Pet 3:15), thanks to the prophetic and apostolic proclamation of the Gospel (cf. Rom 10:9f.). They do that in their own name; but they do it from within the communion of believers.

v) Faith involves confidence. To trust in God means to base one’s whole life on the promise of God. In Heb 11, many Old Testament believers are mentioned as members of a great procession through time and space to God in heaven, guided by Jesus the ‘the pioneer and perfecter of our faith’ (Heb 12:3). Christians are part of this procession, sharing the same hope and conviction (Heb 11:1), and already ‘surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses’ (Heb 12:1).

vi) Faith entails responsibility, and especially charity and service (diakonia). The disciples will be known ‘by their fruits’ (Mt 7:20). The fruits belong essentially to faith, because faith, which comes from listening to the word of God, requires obedience to his will. The faith which justifies (Gal 2:16) is ‘faith working through love’ (Gal 5:6; cf. Jas 2:21-24). Love for one’s brother and sister is in fact the criterion for love of God (1Jn 4:20).

c) The capacity of believers to know and witness to the truth

13. In Jeremiah, a ‘new covenant’ is promised, one which will involve the internalisation of God’s word: ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord”, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more’ (Jer 31:33-34). The people of God is to be created anew, receiving ‘a new spirit’, so as to be able to recognise the law and to follow it (Ez 11:19-20). This promise is fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus and the life of the Church by the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is especially fulfilled in the celebration of the Eucharist, where the faithful receive the cup that is ‘the new covenant’ in the Lord’s blood (Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; cf. Rom 11:27; Heb 8:6-12; 10:14-17).

14. In his farewell discourse, in the context of the Last Supper, Jesus promised his disciples the ‘Advocate’, the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14). The Spirit will remind them of the words of Jesus (Jn 14:26), enable them to testify to the word of God (Jn 15:26-27), ‘prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’ (Jn 16:8), and ‘guide’ the disciples ‘into all the truth’ (Jn 16:13). All of this happens thanks to the gift of the Spirit through the paschal mystery, celebrated in the life of the Christian community, particularly in the Eucharist, until the Lord comes (cf. 1Cor 11:26). The disciples have an inspired sense for the ever-actual truth of God’s word incarnate in Jesus and of its meaning for today (cf. 2Cor 6:2), and that is what drives the people of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bear witness to their faith in the Church and in the world.

15. Moses wished that all of the people might be prophets by receiving the spirit of the Lord (Num 11:29). That wish became an eschatological promise through the prophet, Joel, and at Pentecost Peter proclaims the fulfillment of the promise: ‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy’ (Acts 2:17; cf. Joel 3:1). The Spirit who was promised (cf. Acts 1:8) is poured out, enabling the faithful to speak ‘about God's deeds of power’ (Acts 2:11).

16. The first description of the community of believers in Jerusalem combines four elements: ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42). Devotion to these four elements powerfully manifests apostolic faith. Faith clings to the authentic teaching of the Apostles, which remembers the teaching of Jesus (cf. Lk 1:1-4); it draws believers into fellowship with one another; it is renewed through the encounter with the Lord in the breaking of bread; and it is nourished in prayer.

17. When in the church of Jerusalem a conflict arose between the Hellenists and the Hebrews about the daily distribution, the twelve apostles summoned ‘the whole community of the disciples’ and took a decision that ‘pleased the whole community’. The whole community chose ‘seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom’, and set them before the apostles who then prayed and laid their hands upon them (Acts 6:1-6). When problems arose in the church of Antioch concerning circumcision and the practice of the Torah, the case was submitted to the judgment of the mother church of Jerusalem. The resulting apostolic council was of the greatest importance for the future of the Church. Luke describes the sequence of events carefully. The ‘apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter’ (Acts 15:6). Peter told the story of his being inspired by the Holy Spirit to baptise Cornelius and his house even though they were uncircumcised (Acts 15:7-11). Paul and Barnabas told of their missionary experience in the local church of Antioch (Acts 15:12; cf. 15:1-5). James reflected on those experiences in the light of the Scriptures (Acts 15:13-18), and proposed a decision that favoured the unity of the Church (Acts 15:19-21). ‘Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas’ (Acts 15:22). The letter which communicated the decision was received by the community with the joy of faith (Acts 15:23-33). For Luke, these events demonstrated proper ecclesial action, involving both the pastoral service of the apostles and elders and also the participation of the community, qualified to participate by their faith.

18. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul identifies the foolishness of the cross as the wisdom of God (1Cor 1:18-25). Explaining how this paradox is comprehensible, he says: ‘we have the mind of Christ’ (1Cor 2:16; ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν; nos autem sensum Christi habemus, in the Vulgate). ‘We’ here refers to the church of Corinth in communion with her Apostle as part of the whole community of believers (1Cor 1:1-2). The capacity to recognise the crucified Messiah as the wisdom of God is given by the Holy Spirit; it is not a privilege of the wise and the scribes (cf. 1Cor 1:20), but is given to the poor, the marginalised, and to those who are ‘foolish’ in the eyes of the world (1Cor 1:26-29). Even so, Paul criticises the Corinthians for being ‘still of the flesh’, still not ready for ‘solid food’ (1Cor 3:1-4). Their faith needs to mature and to find better expression in their words and deeds.

19. In his own ministry, Paul shows respect for, and a desire to deepen, the faith of his communities. In 2Cor 1:24, he describes his mission as an apostle in the following terms: ‘I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith’, and he encourages the Corinthians: ‘Stand firm in your faith’ (1Cor 16:14). To the Thessalonians, he writes a letter ‘to strengthen and encourage you for the sake of your faith’ (1Thess 3:2), and he prays for the faith of other communities likewise (cf. Col 1:9; Eph 1:17-19). The apostle not only works for an increase in the faith of others, he knows his own faith to be strengthened thereby in a sort of dialogue of faith: ‘… that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine’ (Rom 1:17). The faith of the community is a reference point for Paul’s teaching and a focus for his pastoral service, giving rise to a mutually beneficial interchange between him and his communities.

20. In the first letter of John, the apostolic Tradition is mentioned (1Jn 1:1-4), and the readers are reminded of their baptism: ‘You have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge’ (1Jn 2:20). The letter continues: ‘As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him’ (1Jn 2:27).

21. Finally, in the Book of Revelation, John the prophet repeats in all of his letters to the churches (cf. Rev 2-3) the formula: ‘Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches’ (Rev 2:7, et al.). The members of the churches are charged to heed the living word of the Spirit, to receive it, and to give glory to God. It is by the obedience of faith, itself a gift of the Spirit, that the faithful are able to recognise the teaching they are receiving truly as the teaching of the same Spirit, and to respond to the instructions they are given.

2. The development of the idea, and its place in the history of the Church

22. The concept of the sensus fidelium began to be elaborated and used in a more systematic way at the time of the Reformation, though the decisive role of the consensus fidelium in the discernment and development of doctrine concerning faith and morals was already recognised in the patristic and medieval periods. What was still needed, however, was more attention to the specific role of the laity in this regard. That issue received attention particularly from the nineteenth century onwards.

a) Patristic period

23. The Fathers and theologians of the first few centuries considered the faith of the whole Church to be a sure point of reference for discerning the content of the apostolic Tradition. Their conviction about the solidity and even the infallibility of the discernment of the whole Church on matters of faith and morals was expressed in the context of controversy. They refuted the dangerous novelties introduced by heretics by comparing them with what was held and done in all the churches.[8] For Tertullian (c.160-c.225), the fact that all the churches have substantially the same faith testifies to Christ’s presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit; those go astray who abandon the faith of the whole Church.[9] For Augustine (354-430), the whole Church, ‘from the bishops to the least of the faithful’, bears witness to the truth.[10] The general consent of Christians functions as a sure norm for determining the apostolic faith: ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum [the judgement of the whole world is sure]’.[11] John Cassian (c.360-435) held that the universal consent of the faithful is a sufficient argument to confute heretics,[12] and Vincent of Lérins (died c.445) proposed as a norm the faith that was held everywhere, always, and by everyone (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).[13]

24. To resolve disputes among the faithful, the Church Fathers appealed not only to common belief but also to the constant tradition of practice. Jerome (c.345-420), for example, found justification for the veneration of relics by pointing to the practice of the bishops and of the faithful,[14] and Epiphanius (c.315-403), in defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity, asked whether anyone had ever dared to utter her name without adding ‘the Virgin’.[15]

25. The testimony of the patristic period chiefly concerns the prophetic witness of the people of God as a whole, something that has a certain objective character. The believing people as a whole cannot err in matters of faith, it was claimed, because they have received an anointing from Christ, the promised Holy Spirit, which equips them to discern the truth. Some Fathers of the Church also reflected on the subjective capacity of Christians animated by faith and indwelt by the Holy Spirit to maintain true doctrine in the Church and to reject error. Augustine, for example, called attention to this when he asserted that Christ ‘the interior Teacher’ enables the laity as well as their pastors not only to receive the truth of revelation but also to approve and transmit it.[16]

26. In the first five centuries, the faith of the Church as a whole proved decisive in determining the canon of Scripture and in defining major doctrines concerning, for example, the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, and the veneration and invocation of the saints. In some cases, as Blessed John Henry Newman (1801-90) remarked, the faith of the laity, in particular, played a crucial role. The most striking example was in the famous controversy in the fourth century with the Arians, who were condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), where the divinity of Jesus Christ was defined. From then until the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), however, there continued to be uncertainty among the bishops. During that period, ‘the divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate’. ‘[T]here was a temporary suspense of the functions of the “Ecclesia docens”. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.’[17]

b) Medieval period

27. Newman also commented that ‘in a later age, when the learned Benedictines of Germany [cf. Rabanus Maurus, c.780-856] and France [cf. Ratramnus, died c.870] were perplexed in their enunciation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, Paschasius [c.790 - c.860] was supported by the faithful in his maintenance of it.’[18] Something similar happened with respect to the dogma, defined by Pope Benedict XII in the constitution, Benedictus Deus (1336), regarding the beatific vision, enjoyed already by souls after purgatory and before the day of judgement:[19] ‘the tradition, on which the definition was made, was manifested in the consensus fidelium, with a luminousness which the succession of Bishops, though many of them were “Sancti Patres ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus”, did not furnish’. ‘[M]ost considerable deference was paid to the “sensus fidelium”; their opinion and advice indeed was not asked, but their testimony was taken, their feelings consulted, their impatience, I had almost said, feared.’[20] The continuing development, among the faithful, of belief in, and devotion to, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in spite of opposition to the doctrine by certain theologians, is another major example of the role played in the Middle Ages by the sensus fidelium.

28. The Scholastic doctors acknowledged that the Church, the congregatio fidelium, cannot err in matters of faith because she is taught by God, united with Christ her Head, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Thomas Aquinas, for example, takes this as a premise on the grounds that the universal Church is governed by the Holy Spirit who, as the Lord Jesus promised, would teach her ‘all truth’ (Jn 16:13).[21] He knew that the faith of the universal Church is authoritatively expressed by her prelates,[22] but he was also particularly interested in each believer’s personal instinct of faith, which he explored in relation to the theological virtue of faith.

c) Reformation and post-Reformation period

29. The challenge posed by the 16th century Reformers required renewed attention to the sensus fidei fidelium, and the first systematic treatment of it was worked out as a result. The Reformers emphasised the primacy of the word of God in Sacred Scripture (Scriptura sola) and the priesthood of the faithful. In their view, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit gives all of the baptised the ability to interpret, by themselves, God’s word; this conviction did not discourage them, however, from teaching in synods and producing catechisms for the instruction of the faithful. Their doctrines called into question, among other things, the role and status of Tradition, the authority of the pope and the bishops to teach, and the inerrancy of councils. In response to their claim that the promise of Christ’s presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit was given to the whole Church, not only to the Twelve but also to every believer,[23] Catholic theologians were led to explain more fully how the pastors serve the faith of the people. In the process, they gave increasing attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy.

30. Theologians of the Catholic Reformation, building on previous efforts to develop a systematic ecclesiology, took up the question of revelation, its sources, and their authority. At first, they responded to the Reformers’ critique of certain doctrines by appealing to the infallibility of the whole Church, laity and clergy together, in credendo.[24] The Council of Trent, in fact, repeatedly appealed to the judgment of the whole Church in its defence of disputed articles of Catholic doctrine. Its Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist (1551), for example, specifically invoked ‘the universal understanding of the Church [universum Ecclesiae sensum]’.[25]

31. Melchior Cano (1509-1560), who attended the council, provided the first extended treatment of the sensus fidei fidelium in his defence of Catholic esteem for the probative force of Tradition in theological argument. In his treatise, De locis theologicis (1564),[26] he identified the present common consent of the faithful as one of four criteria for determining whether a doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic tradition.[27] In a chapter on the Church’s authority with respect to doctrine, he argued that the faith of the Church cannot fail because she is the Spouse (Hos 2; 1Cor 11:2) and Body of Christ (Eph 5), and because the Holy Spirit guides her (Jn 14:16, 26).[28] Cano also noted that the word ‘Church’ sometimes designates all of the faithful, including the pastors, and sometimes designates her leaders and pastors (principes et pastores), for they too possess the Holy Spirit.[29] He used the word in the first sense when he asserted that the Church’s faith cannot fail, that the Church cannot be deceived in believing, and that infallibility belongs not only to the Church of past ages but also to the Church as it is presently constituted. He used ‘Church’ in the second sense when he taught that her pastors are infallible in giving authoritative doctrinal judgments, for they are assisted in this task by the Holy Spirit (Eph 4; 1 Tim 3).[30]

32. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), defending the Catholic faith against its Reformation critics, took the visible Church, the ‘universality of all believers’, as his starting point. For him, all that the faithful hold as de fide, and all that the bishops teach as pertaining to the faith, is necessarily true and to be believed.[31] He maintained that the councils of the Church cannot fail because they possess this consensus Ecclesiae universalis.[32]

33. Other theologians of the post-Tridentine era continued to affirm the infallibility of the Ecclesia (by which they meant the entire Church, inclusive of her pastors) in credendo, but began to distinguish the roles of the ‘teaching Church’ and the ‘learning Church’ rather sharply. The earlier emphasis on the ‘active’ infallibility of the Ecclesia in credendo was gradually replaced by an emphasis on the active role of the Ecclesia docens. It became common to say that the Ecclesia discens had only a ‘passive’ infallibility.

d) 19th Century

34. The 19th century was a decisive period for the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelium. It saw, in the Catholic Church, partly in response to criticism from representatives of modern culture and from Christians of other traditions, and partly from an inner maturation, the rise of historical consciousness, a revival of interest in the Fathers of the Church and in medieval theologians, and a renewed exploration of the mystery of the Church. In this context, Catholic theologians such as Johann Adam Möhler (1796-1838), Giovanni Perrone (1794-1876), and John Henry Newman gave new attention to the sensus fidei fidelium as a locus theologicus in order to explain how the Holy Spirit maintains the whole Church in truth and to justify developments in the Church’s doctrine. Theologians highlighted the active role of the whole Church, especially the contribution of the lay faithful, in preserving and transmitting the Church’s faith; and the magisterium implicitly confirmed this insight in the process leading to the definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854).

35. To defend the Catholic faith against Rationalism, the Tübingen scholar, Johann Adam Möhler, sought to portray the Church as a living organism and to grasp the principles that governed the development of doctrine. In his view, it is the Holy Spirit who animates, guides, and unites the faithful as a community in Christ, bringing about in them an ecclesial ‘consciousness’ of the faith (Gemeingeist or Gesamtsinn), something akin to a Volksgeist or national spirit.[33] This sensus fidei, which is the subjective dimension of Tradition, necessarily includes an objective element, the Church’s teaching, for the Christian ‘sense’ of the faithful, which lives in their hearts and is virtually equivalent to Tradition, is never divorced from its content.[34]

36. John Henry Newman initially investigated the sensus fidei fidelium to resolve his difficulty concerning the development of doctrine. He was the first to publish an entire treatise on the latter topic, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), and to spell out the characteristics of faithful development. To distinguish between true and false developments, he adopted Augustine’s norm - the general consent of the whole Church, ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum’ – but he saw that an infallible authority is necessary to maintain the Church in the truth.

37. Using insights from Möhler and Newman,[35] Perrone retrieved the patristic understanding of the sensus fidelium in order to respond to a widespread desire for a papal definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; he found in the unanimous consent, or conspiratio, of the faithful and their pastors a warrant for the apostolic origin of this doctrine. He maintained that the most distinguished theologians attributed probative force to the sensus fidelium, and that the strength of one ‘instrument of tradition’ can make up for the deficit of another, e.g., ‘the silence of the Fathers’.[36]

38. The influence of Perrone’s research on Pope Pius IX’s decision to proceed with the definition of the Immaculate Conception is evident from the fact that before he defined it the Pope asked the bishops of the world to report to him in writing regarding the devotion of their clergy and faithful people to the conception of the Immaculate Virgin.[37] In the apostolic constitution containing the definition, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pope Pius IX said that although he already knew the mind of the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked the bishops to inform him of the piety and devotion of their faithful in this regard, and he concluded that ‘Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church [perpetuus Ecclesiae sensus], the remarkable agreement of Catholic bishops and the faithful [singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac fidelium conspiratio], and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors’ all wonderfully illustrated and proclaimed the doctrine.[38] He thus used the language of Perrone’s treatise to describe the combined testimony of the bishops and the faithful. Newman highlighted the word, conspiratio, and commented: ‘the two, the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided’.[39]

39. When Newman later wrote On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859), it was to demonstrate that the faithful (as distinct from their pastors) have their own, active role to play in conserving and transmitting the faith. ‘[T]he tradition of the Apostles’ is ‘committed to the whole Church in its various constituents and functions per modum unius’, but the bishops and the lay faithful bear witness to it in diverse ways. The tradition, he says, ‘manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies, rites, ceremonies, and customs, by events, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history’.[40] For Newman, ‘there is something in the “pastorum et fidelium conspiratio” which is not in the pastors alone’.[41] In this work, Newman quoted at length from the arguments proposed over a decade earlier by Giovanni Perrone in favor of the definition of the Immaculate Conception.[42]

40. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution, Pastor Aeternus, in which the infallible magisterium of the pope was defined, by no means ignored the sensus fidei fidelium; on the contrary, it presupposed it. The original draft constitution, Supremi Pastoris, from which it developed, had a chapter on the infallibility of the Church (chapter nine).[43] When the order of business was changed in order to resolve the question of papal infallibility, however, discussion of that foundation was deferred and never taken up. In his relatio on the definition of papal infallibility, Bishop Vincent Gasser nevertheless explained that the special assistance given to the pope does not set him apart from the Church and does not exclude consultation and cooperation.[44] The definition of the Immaculate Conception was an example, he said, of a case ‘so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from the bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches’.[45] In a phrase intended to exclude Gallicanism, Pastor Aeternus asserted that ex cathedra doctrinal definitions of the pope concerning faith and morals are irreformable ‘of themselves and not from the consent of the Church [ex sese non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]’,[46] but that does not make the consensus Ecclesiae superfluous. What it excludes is the theory that such a definition requires this consent, antecedent or consequent, as a condition for its authoritative status.[47] In response to the Modernist crisis, a decree from the Holy Office, Lamentabili (1907), confirmed the freedom of the Ecclesia docens vis-à-vis the Ecclesia discens. The decree censured a proposition that would allow the pastors to teach only what the faithful already believed.[48]

e) 20th Century

41. Catholic theologians in the 20th century explored the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelium in the context of a theology of Tradition, a renewed ecclesiology, and a theology of the laity. They emphasised that ‘the Church’ is not identical with her pastors; that the whole Church, by the action of the Holy Spirit, is the subject or ‘organ’ of Tradition; and that lay people have an active role in the transmission of the apostolic faith. The magisterium endorsed these developments both in the consultation leading to the definition of the glorious Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and in the Second Vatican Council’s retrieval and confirmation of the doctrine of the sensus fidei.

42. In 1946, following the pattern of his predecessor, Pope Pius XII sent an encyclical letter, Deiparae Virginis Mariae, to all the bishops of the world asking them to inform him ‘about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary’. He thus reaffirmed the practice of consulting the faithful in advance of making a dogmatic definition, and, in the apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus (1950), he reported the ‘almost unanimous response’ he had received.[49] Belief in Mary’s Assumption was, indeed, ‘thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful’.[50] Pope Pius XII referred to ‘the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people’, and said, with regard now to belief in Mary’s Assumption, as Pope Pius IX had said with regard to belief in her Immaculate Conception, that there was a ‘singularis catholicorum Antistitum et fidelium conspiratio’. He added that the conspiratio showed ‘in an entirely certain and infallible way’ that Mary’s Assumption was ‘a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly’.[51] In both cases, then, the papal definitions confirmed and celebrated the deeply-held beliefs of the faithful.

43. Yves M.-J. Congar (1904-1995) contributed significantly to the development of the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelis and the sensus fidei fidelium. In Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat (orig. 1953), he explored this doctrine in terms of the participation of the laity in the Church’s prophetical function. Congar was acquainted with Newman’s work and adopted the same scheme (i.e. the threefold office of the Church, and the sensus fidelium as an expression of the prophetic office) without, however, tracing it directly to Newman.[52] He described the sensus fidelium as a gift of the Holy Spirit ‘given to the hierarchy and the whole body of the faithful together’, and he distinguished the objective reality of faith (which constitutes the tradition) from the subjective aspect, the grace of faith.[53] Where earlier authors had underlined the distinction between the Ecclesia docens and the Ecclesia discens, Congar was concerned to show their organic unity. ‘The Church loving and believing, that is, the body of the faithful, is infallible in the living possession of the faith, not in a particular act or judgment’, he wrote.[54] The teaching of the hierarchy is at the service of communion.

44. In many ways, the Second Vatican Council’s teaching reflects Congar’s contribution. Chapter one of Lumen Gentium, on ‘The Mystery of the Church’, teaches that the Holy Spirit ‘dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple’. ‘Guiding the Church in the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of ministry, he bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22)’.[55] Chapter two then continues to deal with the Church as a whole, as the ‘People of God’, prior to distinctions between lay and ordained. The article (LG 12) which mentions the sensus fidei teaches that, having ‘an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27)’, the ‘whole body of the faithful … cannot err in matters of belief’. The ‘Spirit of truth’ arouses and sustains a ‘supernatural appreciation of the faith [supernaturali sensu fidei]’, shown when ‘the whole people, … “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” … manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals’. By means of the sensus fidei, ‘the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1Thess 2:13)’. According to this description, the sensus fidei is an active capacity or sensibility by which they are able to receive and understand the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3)’. Indeed, by means of it, the people not only ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith’, but also ‘penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life’. It is the means by which the people shares in ‘Christ’s prophetic office’.[56]

45. Lumen Gentium subsequently describes, in chapters three and four, respectively, how Christ exercises his prophetic office not only through the Church’s pastors, but also through the lay faithful. It teaches that, ‘until the full manifestation of his glory’, the Lord fulfills this office ‘not only by the hierarchy who teach in his name and by his power, but also by the laity’. With regard to the latter, it continues: ‘He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the appreciation of the faith and the grace of the word [sensu fidei et gratia verbi instruit] (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Apoc 19:10) so that the power of the Gospel may shine out in daily family and social life.’ Strengthened by the sacraments, ‘the laity become powerful heralds of the faith in things to be hoped for (cf. Heb 11:1)’; ‘the laity can, and must, do valuable work for the evangelisation of the world’.[57] Here, the sensus fidei is presented as Christ’s gift to the faithful, and once again is described as an active capacity by which the faithful are able to understand, live and proclaim the truths of divine revelation. It is the basis for their work of evangelisation.

46. The sensus fidei is also evoked in the council’s teaching on the development of doctrine, in the context of the transmission of the apostolic faith. Dei Verbum says that the apostolic Tradition ‘makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit’. ‘There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on’, and the council identifies three ways in which this happens: ‘through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19 and 51)’; ‘from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience [ex intima spiritualium rerum quam experiuntur intelligentia]’; and ‘from the preaching of those [the bishops] who have received … the sure charism of truth’.[58] Although this passage does not name the sensus fidei, the contemplation, study, and experience of believers to which it refers are all clearly associated with the sensus fidei, and most commentators agree that the council fathers were consciously invoking Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine. When this text is read in light of the description of the sensus fidei in Lumen Gentium 12 as a supernatural appreciation of the faith, aroused by the Holy Spirit, by which people guided by their pastors adhere unfailingly to the faith, it is readily seen to express the same idea. When referring to ‘the remarkable harmony’ that should exist between the bishops and the faithful in the practice and profession of the faith handed on by the apostles, Dei Verbum actually uses the very expression found in the definitions of both Marian dogmas, ‘singularis fiat Antistitum et fidelium conspiratio’.[59]

47. Since the council, the magisterium has reiterated key points from the council’s teaching on the sensus fidei,[60] and also addressed a new issue, namely, the importance of not presuming that public opinion inside (or outside) the Church is necessarily the same thing as the sensus fidei (fidelium). In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1981), Pope John Paul II considered the question as to how the ‘supernatural sense of faith’ may be related to the ‘consensus of the faithful’ and to majority opinion as determined by sociological and statistical research. The sensus fidei, he wrote, ‘does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful’. It is the task of the Church’s pastors to ‘promote the sense of the faith in all the faithful, examine and authoritatively judge the genuineness of its expressions, and educate the faithful in an ever more mature evangelical discernment’.[61]

Chapter 2: The sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer

48. This second chapter concentrates on the nature of the sensus fidei fidelis. It utilises, in particular, the framework of arguments and categories offered by classical theology in order to reflect how faith is operative in individual believers. Although the Biblical vision of faith is larger, the classical understanding highlights an essential aspect: the adherence of the intellect, through love, to revealed truth. This conceptualisation of faith serves still today to clarify the understanding of the sensus fidei fidelis. In these terms, the chapter also considers some manifestations of the sensus fidei fidelis in the personal lives of believers, it being clear that the personal and ecclesial aspects of the sensus fidei are inseparable.

1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith

49. The sensus fidei fidelis is a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith. It is intrinsically linked to the virtue of faith itself; it flows from, and is a property of, faith.[62] It is compared to an instinct because it is not primarily the result of rational deliberation, but is rather a form of spontaneous and natural knowledge, a sort of perception (aisthesis).

50. The sensus fidei fidelis arises, first and foremost, from the connaturality that the virtue of faith establishes between the believing subject and the authentic object of faith, namely the truth of God revealed in Christ Jesus. Generally speaking, connaturality refers to a situation in which an entity A has a relationship with another entity B so intimate that A shares in the natural dispositions of B as if they were its own. Connaturality permits a particular and profound form of knowledge. For example, to the extent that one friend is united to another, he or she becomes capable of judging spontaneously what suits the other because he or she shares the very inclinations of the other and so understands by connaturality what is good or bad for the other. This is a knowledge, in other words, of a different order than objective knowledge, which proceeds by way of conceptualisation and reasoning. It is a knowledge by empathy, or a knowledge of the heart.

51. Every virtue connaturalises its subject, in other words the one who possesses it, to its object, that is, to a certain type of action. What is meant by virtue here is the stable disposition (or habitus) of a person to behave in a certain way either intellectually or morally. Virtue is a kind of ‘second nature’, by which the human person constructs himself or herself by actualising freely and in accord with right reason the dynamisms inscribed in human nature. It thereby gives a definite, stable orientation to the activity of the natural faculties; it directs the latter to behaviours which the virtuous person henceforth accomplishes ‘naturally’, with ‘ease, self-mastery and joy’.[63]

52. Every virtue has a double effect: first, it naturally inclines the person who possesses it towards an object (a certain kind of action), and second, it spontaneously distances him or her from whatever is contrary to that object. For example, a person who has developed the virtue of chastity possesses a sort of ‘sixth sense’, ‘a kind of spiritual instinct’,[64] which enables him or her to discern the right way to behave even in the most complex situations, spontaneously perceiving what it is appropriate to do and what to avoid. A chaste person thereby instinctively adopts the right attitude, where the conceptual reasoning of the moralist might lead to perplexity and indecision.[65]

53. The sensus fidei is the form that the instinct which accompanies every virtue takes in the case of the virtue of faith. ‘Just as, by the habits of the other virtues, one sees what is becoming in respect of that habit, so, by the habit of faith, the human mind is directed to assent to such things as are becoming to a right faith, and not to assent to others.’[66]Faith, as a theological virtue, enables the believer to participate in the knowledge that God has of himself and of all things. In the believer, it takes the form of a ‘second nature’.[67]By means of grace and the theological virtues, believers become ‘participants of the divine nature’ (2Pet 1:4), and are in a way connaturalised to God. As a result, they react spontaneously on the basis of that participated divine nature, in the same way that living beings react instinctively to what does or does not suit their nature.

54. Unlike theology, which can be described as scientia fidei, the sensus fidei fidelis is not a reflective knowledge of the mysteries of faith which deploys concepts and uses rational procedures to reach its conclusions. As its name (sensus) indicates, it is akin rather to a natural, immediate and spontaneous reaction, and comparable to a vital instinct or a sort of ‘flair’ by which the believer clings spontaneously to what conforms to the truth of faith and shuns what is contrary to it.[68]

55. The sensus fidei fidelis is infallible in itself with regard to its object: the true faith.[69] However, in the actual mental universe of the believer, the correct intuitions of the sensus fidei can be mixed up with various purely human opinions, or even with errors linked to the narrow confines of a particular cultural context.[70]‘Although theological faith as such cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith.’[71]

56. The sensus fidei fidelis flows from the theological virtue of faith. That virtue is an interior disposition, prompted by love, to adhere without reserve to the whole truth revealed by God as soon as it is perceived as such. Faith does not therefore necessarily imply an explicit knowledge of the whole of revealed truth.[72]It follows that a certain type of sensus fidei can exist in ‘the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety’.[73]The Catholic Church therefore needs to be attentive to what the Spirit may be saying to her by means of believers in the churches and ecclesial communities not fully in communion with her.

57. Since it is a property of the theological virtue of faith, the sensus fidei fidelis develops in proportion to the development of the virtue of faith. The more the virtue of faith takes root in the heart and spirit of believers and informs their daily life, the more the sensus fidei fidelis develops and strengthens in them. Now, since faith, understood as a form of knowledge, is based on love, charity is needed in order to animate it and to inform it, so as to make it a living and lived faith (fides formata). Thus, the intensifying of faith within the believer particularly depends on the growth within him or her of charity, and the sensus fidei fidelis is therefore proportional to the holiness of one’s life. St Paul teaches that ‘God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us’ (Rom 5:5), and it follows that the development of the sensus fidei in the spirit of the believer is particularly due to the action of the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of love, who instils love in human hearts, the Holy Spirit opens to believers the possibility of a deeper and more intimate knowledge of Christ the Truth, on the basis of a union of charity: ‘Showing the truth is a property of the Holy Spirit, because it is love which brings about the revelation of secrets’.[74]

58. Charity enables the flourishing in believers of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who leads them to a higher understanding of the things of faith ‘in all spiritual wisdom and understanding’ (Col 1:9).[75]In fact, the theological virtues attain their full measure in the believer’s life only when the believer allows the Holy Spirit to guide him or her (cf. Rom 8:14). The gifts of the Spirit are precisely the gratuitous and infused interior dispositions which serve as a basis for the activity of the Spirit in the life of the believer. By means of these gifts of the Spirit, especially the gifts of understanding and knowledge, believers are made capable of understanding intimately the ‘spiritual realities which they experience’,[76]and rejecting any interpretation contrary to the faith.

59. There is a vital interaction in each believer between the sensus fidei and the living of faith in the various contexts of his or her personal life. On one hand, the sensus fidei enlightens and guides the way in which the believer puts his or her faith into practice. On the other hand, by keeping the commandments and putting faith into practice, the believer gains a deeper understanding of faith: ‘those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God’ (Jn 3:21). Putting faith into practice in the concrete reality of the existential situations in which he or she is placed by family, professional and cultural relations enriches the personal experience of the believer. It enables him or her to see more precisely the value and the limits of a given doctrine, and to propose ways of refining its formulation. That is why those who teach in the name of the Church should give full attention to the experience of believers, especially lay people, who strive to put the Church’s teaching into practice in the areas of their own specific experience and competence.

2. Manifestations of the sensus fidei in the personal life of believers

60. Three principal manifestations of the sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer can be highlighted. The sensus fidei fidelis enables individual believers: 1) to discern whether or not a particular teaching or practice that they actually encounter in the Church is coherent with the true faith by which they live in the communion of the Church (see below, §§61-63); 2) to distinguish in what is preached between the essential and the secondary (§64); and 3) to determine and put into practice the witness to Jesus Christ that they should give in the particular historical and cultural context in which they live (§65).

61. ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God ; for many false prophets have gone out into the world’ (1Jn 4:1). The sensus fidei fidelis confers on the believer the capacity to discern whether or not a teaching or practice is coherent with the true faith by which he or she already lives. If individual believers perceive or ‘sense’ that coherence, they spontaneously give their interior adherence to those teachings or engage personally in the practices, whether it is a matter of truths already explicitly taught or of truths not yet explicitly taught.

62. The sensus fidei fidelis also enables individual believers to perceive any disharmony, incoherence, or contradiction between a teaching or practice and the authentic Christian faith by which they live. They react as a music lover does to false notes in the performance of a piece of music. In such cases, believers interiorly resist the teachings or practices concerned and do not accept them or participate in them. ‘The habitus of faith possesses a capacity whereby, thanks to it, the believer is prevented from giving assent to what is contrary to the faith, just as chastity gives protection with regard to whatever is contrary to chastity.’[77]

63. Alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd. ‘The sheep follow [the Good Shepherd] because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run away from him because they do not know the voice of strangers’ (Jn 10:4-5). For St Thomas, a believer, even without theological competence, can and even must resist, by virtue of the sensus fidei, his or her bishop if the latter preaches heterodoxy.[78]In such a case, the believer does not treat himself or herself as the ultimate criterion of the truth of faith, but rather, faced with materially ‘authorised’ preaching which he or she finds troubling, without being able to explain exactly why, defers assent and appeals interiorly to the superior authority of the universal Church.[79]

64. The sensus fidei fidelis also enables the believer to distinguish in what is preached between what is essential for an authentic Catholic faith and what, without being formally against the faith, is only accidental or even indifferent with regard to the core of the faith. For example, by virtue of their sensus fidei, individual believers may relativise certain particular forms of Marian devotion precisely out of adherence to an authentic cult of the Virgin Mary. They might also distance themselves from preaching which unduly mixes together Christian faith and partisan political choices. By keeping the spirit of the believer focused in this way on what is essential to the faith, the sensus fidei fidelis guarantees an authentic Christian liberty (cf. Col 2:16-23), and contributes to a purification of faith.

65. Thanks to the sensus fidei fidelis and sustained by the supernatural prudence that the Spirit confers, the believer is able to sense, in new historical and cultural contexts, what might be the most appropriate ways in which to give an authentic witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, and moreover to act accordingly. The sensus fidei fidelis thus acquires a prospective dimension to the extent that, on the basis of the faith already lived, it enables the believer to anticipate a development or an explanation of Christian practice. Because of the reciprocal link between the practice of the faith and the understanding of its content, the sensus fidei fidelis contributes in this way to the emergence and illumination of aspects of the Catholic faith that were previously implicit; and because of the reciprocal link between the sensus fidei of the individual believer and the sensus fidei of the Church as such, that is the sensus fidei fidelium, such developments are never purely private, but always ecclesial. The faithful are always in relationship with one another, and with the magisterium and theologians, in the communion of the Church.

Chapter 3: The sensus fidei fidelium in the life of the Church

66. As the faith of the individual believer participates in the faith of the Church as a believing subject, so the sensus fidei (fidelis) of individual believers cannot be separated from the sensus fidei (fidelium) or ‘sensus Ecclesiae’[80] of the Church herself, endowed and sustained by the Holy Spirit,[81] and the consensus fidelium constitutes a sure criterion for recognising a particular teaching or practice as in accord with the apostolic Tradition.[82] The present chapter, therefore, turns to consider various aspects of the sensus fidei fidelium. It reflects, first of all, on the role of the latter in the development of Christian doctrine and practice; then on two relationships of great importance for the life and health of the Church, namely the relationship between the sensus fidei and the magisterium, and the relationship between the sensus fidei and theology; then, finally, on some ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei.

1. The sensus fidei and the development of Christian doctrine and practice

67. The whole Church, laity and hierarchy together, bears responsibility for and mediates in history the revelation which is contained in the holy Scriptures and in the living apostolic Tradition. The Second Vatican Council stated that the latter form ‘a single sacred deposit of the word of God’ which is ‘entrusted to the Church’, that is, ‘the entire holy people, united to its pastors’.[83] The council clearly taught that the faithful are not merely passive recipients of what the hierarchy teaches and theologians explain; rather, they are living and active subjects within the Church. In this context, it underscored the vital role played by all believers in the articulation and development of the faith: ‘the Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit’.[84]

a) Retrospective and prospective aspects of the sensus fidei

68. In order to understand how it functions and manifests itself in the life of the Church, the sensus fidei needs to be viewed within the context of history, a history in which the Holy Spirit makes each day a day to hear the voice of the Lord afresh (cf. Heb 3:7-15). The Good News of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is transmitted to the Church as a whole through the living apostolic Tradition, of which the Scriptures are the authoritative written witness. Hence, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who reminds the Church of all that Jesus said and did (cf. Jn 14:26), believers rely on the Scriptures and on the continuing apostolic Tradition in their life of faith and in the exercise of the sensus fidei.

69. However, faith and the sensus fidei are not only anchored in the past; they are also orientated towards the future. The communion of believers is a historical reality: ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone’, it ‘grows into a holy temple in the Lord’ (Eph 2:20-21), in the power of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church ‘into all the truth’ and declares to believers already now ‘the things that are to come’ (Jn 16:13), so that, especially in the Eucharist, the Church anticipates the return of the Lord and the coming of his kingdom (cf. 1Cor 11:26).

70. As she awaits the return of her Lord, the Church and her members are constantly confronted with new circumstances, with the progress of knowledge and culture, and with the challenges of human history, and they have to read the signs of the times, ‘to interpret them in the light of the divine Word’, and to discern how they may enable revealed truth itself to be ‘more deeply penetrated, better understood and more deeply presented’.[85] In this process, the sensus fidei fidelium has an essential role to play. It is not only reactive but also proactive and interactive, as the Church and all of its members make their pilgrim way in history. The sensus fidei is therefore not only retrospective but also prospective, and, though less familiar, the prospective and proactive aspects of the sensus fidei are highly important. The sensus fidei gives an intuition as to the right way forward amid the uncertainties and ambiguities of history, and a capacity to listen discerningly to what human culture and the progress of the sciences are saying. It animates the life of faith and guides authentic Christian action.

71. It can take a long time before this process of discernment comes to a conclusion. In the face of new circumstances, the faithful at large, pastors and theologians all have their respective roles to play, and patience and respect are needed in their mutual interactions if the sensus fidei is to be clarified and a true consensus fidelium, a conspiratio pastorum et fidelium, is to be achieved.

b) The contribution of the laity to the sensus fidelium

72. From the beginning of Christianity, all the faithful played an active role in the development of Christian belief. The whole community bore witness to the apostolic faith, and history shows that, when decisions about the faith needed to be taken, the witness of the laity was taken into consideration by the pastors. As has been seen in the historical survey above,[86] there is evidence that the laity played a major role in the coming into existence of various doctrinal definitions. Sometimes the people of God, and in particular the laity, intuitively felt in which direction the development of doctrine would go, even when theologians and bishops were divided on the issue. Sometimes there was a clear conspiratio pastorum et fidelium. Sometimes, when the Church came to a definition, the Ecclesia docens had clearly ‘consulted’ the faithful, and it pointed to the consensus fidelium as one of the arguments which legitimated the definition.

73. What is less well known, and generally receives less attention, is the role played by the laity with regard to the development of the moral teaching of the Church. It is therefore important to reflect also on the function played by the laity in discerning the Christian understanding of appropriate human behaviour in accordance with the Gospel. In certain areas, the teaching of the Church has developed as a result of lay people discovering the imperatives arising from new situations. The reflection of theologians, and then the judgment of the episcopal magisterium, was based on the Christian experience already clarified by the faithful intuition of lay people. Some examples might illustrate the role of the sensus fidelium in the development of moral doctrine:

i) Between canon 20 of the Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD), which forbade clerics and lay people to receive interest, and the response, Non esse inquietandos, of Pope Pius VIII to the bishop of Rennes (1830),[87] there is a clear development of teaching, due to both the emergence of a new awareness among lay people involved in business as well as new reflection on the part of theologians with regard to the nature of money.

ii) The openness of the Church towards social problems, especially manifest in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum (1896), was the fruit of a slow preparation in which lay ‘social pioneers’, activists as well as thinkers, played a major role.

iii) The striking albeit homogeneous development from the condemnation of ‘liberal’ theses in part 10 of the Syllabus of Errors (1864) of Pope Pius IX to the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), of Vatican II would not have been possible without the commitment of many Christians in the struggle for human rights.

The difficulty of discerning the authentic sensus fidelium in cases such as those above particularly indicates the need to identify dispositions required for authentic participation in the sensus fidei, dispositions which may serve, in turn, as criteria for discerning the authentic sensus fidei.[88]

2. The sensus fidei and the magisterium

a) The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium

74. In matters of faith the baptised cannot be passive. They have received the Spirit and are endowed as members of the body of the Lord with gifts and charisms ‘for the renewal and building up of the Church’,[89] so the magisterium has to be attentive to the sensus fidelium, the living voice of the people of God. Not only do they have the right to be heard, but their reaction to what is proposed as belonging to the faith of the Apostles must be taken very seriously, because it is by the Church as a whole that the apostolic faith is borne in the power of the Spirit. The magisterium does not have sole responsibility for it. The magisterium should therefore refer to the sense of faith of the Church as a whole. The sensus fidelium can be an important factor in the development of doctrine, and it follows that the magisterium needs means by which to consult the faithful.

75. The connection between the sensus fidelium and the magisterium is particularly to be found in the liturgy. The faithful are baptised into a royal priesthood, exercised principally in the Eucharist,[90] and the bishops are the ‘high priests’ who preside at the Eucharist,[91] regularly exercising there their teaching office, also. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of the Church;[92] it is there especially that the faithful and their pastors interact, as one body for one purpose, namely to give praise and glory to God. The Eucharist shapes and forms the sensus fidelium and contributes greatly to the formulation and refinement of verbal expressions of the faith, because it is there that the teaching of bishops and councils is ultimately ‘received’ by the faithful. From early Christian times, the Eucharist underpinned the formulation of the Church’s doctrine because there most of all was the mystery of faith encountered and celebrated, and the bishops who presided at the Eucharist of their local churches among their faithful people were those who gathered in councils to determine how best to express the faith in words and formulas: lex orandi, lex credendi.[93]

b) The magisterium nurtures, discerns and judges the sensus fidelium

76. The magisterium of those ‘who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth’[94] is a ministry of truth exercised in and for the Church, all of whose members have been anointed by the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn 2:20, 27), and endowed with the sensus fidei, an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. Being responsible for ensuring the fidelity of the Church as a whole to the word of God, and for keeping the people of God faithful to the Gospel, the magisterium is responsible for nurturing and educating the sensus fidelium. Of course, those who exercise the magisterium, namely the pope and the bishops, are themselves, first of all, baptised members of the people of God, who participate by that very fact in the sensus fidelium.

77. The magisterium also judges with authority whether opinions which are present among the people of God, and which may seem to be the sensus fidelium, actually correspond to the truth of the Tradition received from the Apostles. As Newman said: ‘the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides solely in the Ecclesia docens’.[95] Thus, judgement regarding the authenticity of the sensus fidelium belongs ultimately not to the faithful themselves nor to theology but to the magisterium. Nevertheless, as already emphasised, the faith which it serves is the faith of the Church, which lives in all of the faithful, so it is always within the communion life of the Church that the magisterium exercises its essential ministry of oversight.

c) Reception

78. ‘Reception’ may be described as a process by which, guided by the Spirit, the people of God recognises intuitions or insights and integrates them into the patterns and structures of its life and worship, accepting a new witness to the truth and corresponding forms of its expression, because it perceives them to be in accord with the apostolic Tradition. The process of reception is fundamental for the life and health of the Church as a pilgrim people journeying in history towards the fulness of God’s Kingdom.

79. All of the gifts of the Spirit, and in a special way the gift of primacy in the Church, are given so as to foster the unity of the Church in faith and communion,[96] and the reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful is itself prompted by the Spirit, as the faithful, by means of the sensus fidei that they possess, recognise the truth of what is taught and cling to it. As was explained above, the teaching of Vatican I that infallible definitions of the pope are irreformable ‘of themselves and not from the consent of the Church [ex sese non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]’[97] does not mean that the pope is cut off from the Church or that his teaching is independent of the faith of the Church.[98] The fact that prior to the infallible definitions both of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her bodily Assumption into heaven an extensive consultation of the faithful was carried out at the express wish of the pope at that time amply proves the point.[99] What is meant, rather, is that such teaching of the pope, and by extension all teaching of the pope and of the bishops, is authoritative in itself because of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the charisma veritatis certum, that they possess.

80. There are occasions, however, when the reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful meets with difficulty and resistance, and appropriate action on both sides is required in such situations. The faithful must reflect on the teaching that has been given, making every effort to understand and accept it. Resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the magisterium is incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei. The magisterium must likewise reflect on the teaching that has been given and consider whether it needs clarification or reformulation in order to communicate more effectively the essential message. These mutual efforts in times of difficulty themselves express the communion that is essential to the life of the Church, and likewise a yearning for the grace of the Spirit who guides the Church ‘into all the truth’ (Jn 16:13).

3. The sensus fidei and theology

81. As a service towards the understanding of faith, theology endeavours, amid the conspiratio of all the charisms and functions in the Church, to provide the Church with objective precision regarding the content of its faith, and it necessarily relies on the existence and correct exercise of the sensus fidelium. The latter is not just an object of attention for theologians, it constitutes a foundation and a locus for their work.[100] Theology itself, therefore, has a two-fold relationship to the sensus fidelium. On the one hand, theologians depend on the sensus fidei because the faith that they study and articulate lives in the people of God. In this sense, theology must place itself in the school of the sensus fidelium so as to discover there the profound resonances of the word of God. On the other hand, theologians help the faithful to express the authentic sensus fidelium by reminding them of the essential lines of faith, and helping them to avoid deviations and confusion caused by the influence of imaginative elements from elsewhere. This two-fold relationship needs some clarification, as in the following sections (a) and (b).

a) Theologians depend on the sensus fidelium

82. By placing itself in the school of the sensus fidelium, theology steeps itself in the reality of the apostolic Tradition which underlies and overflows the strict bounds of the statements in which the teaching of the Church is formulated, because it comprises ‘all that she herself is, all that she believes’.[101] In this regard, three particular considerations arise:

i) Theology should strive to detect the word which is growing like a seed in the earth of the lives of the people of God, and, having determined that a particular accent, desire or attitude does indeed come from the Spirit, and so corresponds to the sensus fidelium, it should integrate it into its research.

ii) By means of the sensus fidelium, the people of God intuitively senses what in a multitude of ideas and doctrines presented to it actually corresponds to the Gospel, and can therefore be received. Theology should apply itself carefully to investigating the various levels of reception that occur in the life of the people of God.

iii) The sensus fidelium both gives rise to and recognises the authenticity of the symbolic or mystical language often found in the liturgy and in popular religiosity. Aware of the manifestations of popular religiosity,[102] the theologian needs actually to participate in the life and liturgy of the local church, so as to be able to grasp in a deep way, not only with the head but also with the heart, the real context, historical and cultural, within which the Church and her members are striving to live their faith and bear witness to Christ in the world of today.

b) Theologians reflect on the sensus fidelium

83. Because the sensus fidelium is not simply identical to the opinion of the majority of the baptised at a given time, theology needs to provide principles and criteria for its discernment, particularly by the magisterium.[103] By critical means, theologians help to reveal and to clarify the content of the sensus fidelium, ‘recognising and demonstrating that issues relating to the truth of faith can be complex, and that investigation of them must be precise’.[104]In this perspective, theologians should also critically examine expressions of popular piety, new currents of thought and also new movements in the Church, for the sake of fidelity to the apostolic Tradition.[105] By so doing, theologians will help the discernment of whether, in a particular case, the Church is dealing with: a deviation caused by a crisis or a misunderstanding of the faith, an opinion which has a proper place in the pluralism of the Christian community without necessarily affecting others, or something so attuned to the faith that it ought to be recognised as an inspiration or a prompting of the Spirit.

84. Theology assists the sensus fidelium in another way, too. It helps the faithful to know with greater clarity and precision the authentic meaning of Scripture, the true significance of conciliar definitions, the proper contents of the Tradition, and also which questions remain open - for example, because of ambiguities in current affirmations, or because of cultural factors having left their mark on what has been handed on - and in which areas a revision of previous positions is needed. The sensus fidelium relies on a strong and sure understanding of the faith, such as theology seeks to promote.

4. Ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei

85. The notions, sensus fidei, sensus fidelium, and consensus fidelium, have all been treated, or at least mentioned, in various international dialogues between the Catholic Church and other churches and ecclesial communities. Broadly speaking, there has been agreement in these dialogues that the whole body of the faithful, lay as well as ordained, bears responsibility for maintaining the Church’s apostolic faith and witness, and that each of the baptised, by reason of a divine anointing (1Jn 2:20, 27), has the capacity to discern the truth in matters of faith. There is also general agreement that certain members of the Church exercise a special responsibility of teaching and oversight, but always in collaboration with the rest of the faithful.[106]

86. Two particular questions related to the sensus fidelium arise in the context of the ecumenical dialogue to which the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed:[107]

i) Should only those doctrines which gain the common consent of all Christians be regarded as expressing the sensus fidelium and therefore as true and binding? This proposal goes counter to the Catholic Church’s faith and practice. By means of dialogue, Catholic theologians and those of other traditions seek to secure agreement on Church-dividing questions, but the Catholic participants cannot suspend their commitment to the Catholic Church’s own established doctrines.

ii) Should separated Christians be understood as participating in and contributing to the sensus fidelium in some manner? The answer here is undoubtedly in the affirmative.[108] The Catholic Church acknowledges that ‘many elements of sanctification and truth’ are to be found outside her own visible bounds,[109] that ‘certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasised’ in other communities,[110] and that ecumenical dialogue helps her to deepen and clarify her own understanding of the Gospel.

Chapter 4: How to discern authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei

87. The sensus fidei is essential to the life of the Church, and it is necessary now to consider how to discern and identify authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei. Such a discernment is particularly required in situations of tension when the authentic sensus fidei needs to be distinguished from expressions simply of popular opinion, particular interests or the spirit of the age. Recognising that the sensus fidei is an ecclesial reality in which individual believers participate, the first part of this chapter seeks to identify those characteristics which are required of the baptised if they are truly to be subjects of the sensus fidei, in other words, the dispositions necessary for believers to participate authentically in the sensus fidelium. The criteriology offered in the first part is then supplemented by consideration of the practical application of criteria with regard to the sensus fidei in the second part of the chapter. Part two considers three important topics: first, the close relationship between the sensus fidei and popular religiosity; then, the necessary distinction between the sensus fidei and public opinion inside or outside the Church; and, finally, the question of how to consult the faithful in matters of faith and morals.

1. Dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei

88. There is not one simple disposition, but rather a set of dispositions, influenced by ecclesial, spiritual, and ethical factors. No single one can be discussed in an isolated manner; its relationship to each and all of the others has to be taken into account. Only the most important dispositions for authentic participation in the sensus fidei are indicated below, drawn from biblical, historical and systematic investigation, and formulated so as to be useful in practical situations of discernment.

a) Participation in the life of the Church

89. The first and most fundamental disposition is active participation in the life of the Church. Formal membership of the Church is not enough. Participation in the life of the Church means constant prayer (cf. 1Thess 5:17), active participation in the liturgy, especially the Eucharist, regular reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, discernment and exercise of gifts and charisms received from the Holy Spirit, and active engagement in the Church’s mission and in her diakonia. It presumes an acceptance of the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals, a willingness to follow the commands of God, and courage both to correct one’s brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself.

90. There are countless ways in which such participation may occur, but what is common in all cases is an active solidarity with the Church, coming from the heart, a feeling of fellowship with other members of the faithful and with the Church as a whole, and an instinct thereby for what the needs of and dangers to the Church are. The necessary attitude is conveyed by the expression, sentire cum ecclesia, to feel, sense and perceive in harmony with the Church. This is required not just of theologians, but of all the faithful; it unites all the members of the people of God as they make their pilgrim journey. It is the key to their ‘walking together’.

91. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who participate in the life of the Church, knowing that ‘we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another’ (Rom 12:5).

b) Listening to the word of God

92. Authentic participation in the sensus fidei relies necessarily on a profound and attentive listening to the word of God. Because the Bible is the original testimony of the word of God, which is handed down from generation to generation in the community of faith,[111] coherence to Scripture and Tradition is the main indicator of such listening. The sensus fidei is the appreciation of the faith by which the people of God ‘receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God’.[112]

93. It is not at all required that all members of the people of God should study the Bible and the witnesses of Tradition in a scientific way. Rather, what is required is an attentive and receptive listening to the Scriptures in the liturgy, and a heartfelt response, ‘Thanks be to God’ and ‘Glory to you, Lord Jesus Christ’, an eager confession of the mystery of faith, and an ‘Amen’ which responds to the ‘Yes’ God has said to his people in Jesus Christ (2Cor 1:20). Participation in the liturgy is the key to participation in the living Tradition of the Church, and solidarity with the poor and needy opens the heart to recognise the presence and the voice of Christ (cf. Mt 25:31-46).

94. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who have ‘received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (1Thess 1:6).

c) Openness to reason

95. A fundamental disposition required for authentic participation in the sensus fidei is acceptance of the proper role of reason in relation to faith. Faith and reason belong together.[113] Jesus taught that God is to be loved not only ‘with all your heart, and with all your soul, … and with all your strength’, but also ‘with all your mind [nous]’ (Mk 12:30). Because there is only one God, there is only one truth, recognised from different points of view and in different ways by faith and by reason, respectively. Faith purifies reason and widens its scope, and reason purifies faith and clarifies its coherence.[114]

96. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who celebrate ‘reasonable worship’ and accept the proper role of reason illuminated by faith in their beliefs and practices. All the faithful are called to be ‘transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God - what is good and acceptable and perfect’ (Rom 12:1-2).

d) Adherence to the magisterium

97. A further disposition necessary for authentic participation in the sensus fidei is attentiveness to the magisterium of the Church, and a willingness to listen to the teaching of the pastors of the Church, as an act of freedom and deeply held conviction.[115] The magisterium is rooted in the mission of Jesus, and especially in his own teaching authority (cf. Mt 7:29). It is intrinsically related both to Scripture and Tradition; none of these three can ‘stand without the others’.[116]

98. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who heed the words of Jesus to the envoys he sends: ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me’ (Lk 10:16).

e) Holiness - humility, freedom and joy

99. Authentic participation in the sensus fidei requires holiness. Holiness is the vocation of the whole Church and of every believer.[117] To be holy fundamentally means to belong to God in Jesus Christ and in his Church, to be baptised and to live the faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Holiness is, indeed, participation in the life of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and it holds together love of God and love of neighbour, obedience to the will of God and engagement in favour of one’s fellow human beings. Such a life is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who is repeatedly invoked and received by Christians (cf. Rom 1:7-8, 11), particularly in the liturgy.

100. In the history of the Church, the saints are the light-bearers of the sensus fidei. Mary, Mother of God, the All-Holy (Panaghia), in her total acceptance of the word of God is the very model of faith and Mother of the Church.[118] Treasuring the words of Christ in her heart (Lk 2:51) and singing the praises of God’s work of salvation (Lk 1:46-55), she perfectly exemplifies the delight in God’s word and eagerness to proclaim the good news that the sensus fidei produces in the hearts of believers. In all succeeding generations, the gift of the Spirit to the Church has produced a rich harvest of holiness, and the full number of the saints is known only to God.[119] Those who are beatified and canonised stand as visible models of Christian faith and life. For the Church, Mary and all holy persons, with their prayer and their passion, are outstanding witnesses of the sensus fidei in their own time and for all times, in their own place and for all places.

101. Because it fundamentally requires an imitatio Christi (cf. Phil 2:5-8), holiness essentially involves humility. Such humility is the very opposite of uncertainty or timidity; it is an act of spiritual freedom. Therefore openness (parrhesia) after the pattern of Christ himself (cf. Jn 18:20) is connected with humility and a characteristic of the sensus fidei as well. The first place to practice humility is within the Church itself. It is not only a virtue of lay people in relation to their pastors, but also a duty of pastors themselves in the exercise of their ministry for the Church. Jesus taught the twelve: ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all’ (Mk 9:35). Humility is lived by habitually acknowledging the truth of faith, the ministry of pastors, and the needs of the faithful, especially the weakest.

102. A true indicator of holiness is ‘peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 14:17; cf. 1Thess 1:6). These are gifts manifested primarily on a spiritual, not a psychological or emotional, level, namely, the peace of heart and quiet joy of the person who has found the treasure of salvation, the pearl of great price (cf. Mt 13:44-46). Peace and joy are, indeed, two of the most characteristic fruits of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22). It is the Holy Spirit who moves the heart and turns it to God, ‘opening the eyes of the mind and giving “joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it [omnibus suavitatem in consentiendo et credendo veritati]”’.[120] Joy is the opposite of the bitterness and wrath that grieve the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:31), and is the hallmark of salvation.[121] St Peter urges Christians to rejoice in sharing Christ’s sufferings, ‘so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed’ (1Pet 4:13).

103. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who hear and respond to the urging of St Paul: ‘make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind’. ‘Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves’ (Phil 2:2-3).

f) Seeking the edification of the Church

104. An authentic manifestation of the sensus fidei contributes to the edification of the Church as one body, and does not foster division and particularism within her. In the first letter to the Corinthians, the very essence of participation in the life and mission of the Church is such edification (cf. 1Cor 14). Edification means building up the Church both in the inner consciousness of its faith and in terms of new members, who want to be baptised into the faith of the Church. The Church is the house of God, a holy temple, made up of the faithful who have received the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor 3:10-17). To build the Church means seeking to discover and develop one’s own gifts and helping others to discover and develop their charisms, too, correcting their failures, and accepting correction oneself, in a spirit of Christian charity, working with others and praying with them, sharing their joys and sorrows (cf. 1Cor 12:12, 26).

105. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who reflect what St Paul says to the Corinthians: ‘To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (1Cor 12:7).

2. Applications

106. Discussion of dispositions appropriate to the sensus fidei needs to be supplemented with consideration of some important practical and pastoral questions, regarding, in particular, the relationship between the sensus fidei and popular religiosity; the necessary distinction between the sensus fidei, on the one hand, and public or majority opinion, on the other; and how to consult the faithful in matters of faith and morals. These points will now be considered in turn.

a) The sensus fidei and popular religiosity

107. There is a ‘religiosity’ that is natural for human beings; religious questions naturally arise in every human life, prompting a vast diversity of religious beliefs and popular practices, and the phenomenon of popular religiosity has been the object of much attention and study in recent times.[122]

108. ‘Popular religiosity’ also has a more specific usage, namely in reference to the great variety of manifestations of Christian belief found among the people of God in the Church, or, rather, to refer to ‘the Catholic wisdom of the people’ that finds expression in such a multitude of ways. That wisdom ‘creatively combines the divine and the human, Christ and Mary, spirit and body, communion and institution, person and community, faith and homeland, intelligence and emotion’, and is also for the people ‘a principle of discernment and an evangelical instinct through which they spontaneously sense when the Gospel is served in the Church and when it is emptied of its content and stifled by other interests’.[123] As such a wisdom, principle and instinct, popular religiosity is clearly very closely related to the sensus fidei, and needs to be considered carefully within the framework of the present study.

109. The words of Jesus, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants’ (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21), are highly relevant in this context. They indicate the wisdom and insight into the things of God that is given to those of humble faith. Vast multitudes of humble Christian believers (and indeed of people beyond the visible bounds of the Church) have privileged access, at least potentially, to the deep truths of God. Popular religiosity arises in particular from the knowledge of God vouchsafed to such people. It is ‘the manifestation of a theological life nourished by the working of the Holy Spirit who has been poured into our hearts (cf. Rom 5:5)’.[124]

110. Both as a principle or instinct and as a rich abundance of Christian practice, especially in the form of cultic activities, e.g. devotions, pilgrimages and processions, popular religiosity springs from and makes manifest the sensus fidei, and is to be respected and fostered. It needs to be recognised that popular piety, in particular, is ‘the first and most fundamental form of faith’s “inculturation”’.[125] Such piety is ‘an ecclesial reality prompted and guided by the Holy Spirit’,[126] by whom the people of God are indeed anointed as a ‘holy priesthood’. It is natural for the priesthood of the people to find expression in a multitude of ways.

111. The priestly activity of the people rightly has its high point in the liturgy, and care must be taken to ensure that popular devotions ‘accord with the sacred liturgy’.[127] More generally, as Pope Paul VI taught, since it is in danger of being penetrated ‘by many distortions of religion and even superstitions’, popular religiosity needs to be evangelised.[128] However, when carefully tended in this way, and ‘well oriented’, it is, he said, ‘rich in values’. ‘It manifests a thirst for God which only the simple and poor can know. It makes people capable of generosity and sacrifice even to the point of heroism, when it is a question of manifesting belief. It involves an acute awareness of profound attributes of God: fatherhood, providence, living and constant presence. It engenders interior attitudes rarely observed to the same degree elsewhere: patience, the sense of the Cross in daily life, detachment, openness to others, devotion…. When it is well oriented, this popular religiosity can be more and more for multitudes of our people a true encounter with God in Jesus Christ.’[129] In admiring the elderly woman’s statement,[130] Pope Francis was echoing the esteem expressed here by Pope Paul. Once again, well oriented popular religiosity, both in its insight into the deep mysteries of the Gospel and in its courageous witness of faith, can be seen as a manifestation and expression of the sensus fidei.

112. It may be said that popular religiosity is ‘well oriented’ when it is truly ‘ecclesial’. Pope Paul indicated in the same text certain criteria for ecclesiality. Being ecclesial means being nourished by the Word of God, not being politicised or trapped by ideologies, remaining strongly in communion with both the local church and the universal Church, with the Church’s pastors and with the magisterium, and being fervently missionary.[131] These criteria indicate conditions required for the authenticity both of popular religiosity and of the sensus fidei that underlies it. In their authentic form, as the final criterion indicates, both are great resources for the Church’s mission. Pope Francis highlights the ‘missionary power’ of popular piety, and in what can be seen as a reference to the sensus fidei, states that ‘underlying popular piety’ there is likewise ‘an active evangelising power which we must not underestimate: to do so would be to fail to recognise the work of the Holy Spirit’.[132]

b) The sensus fidei and public opinion

113. One of the most delicate topics is the relationship between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion both inside and outside the Church. Public opinion is a sociological concept, which applies first of all to political societies. The emergence of public opinion is linked to the birth and development of the political model of representative democracy. In so far as political power gains its legitimacy from the people, the latter must make known their thoughts, and political power must take account of them in the exercise of government. Public opinion is therefore essential to the healthy functioning of democratic life, and it is important that it be enlightened and informed in a competent and honest manner. That is the role of the mass media, which thus contribute greatly to the common good of society, as long as they do not seek to manipulate opinion in favour of particular interests.

114. The Church appreciates the high human and moral values espoused by democracy, but she herself is not structured according to the principles of a secular political society. The Church, the mystery of the communion of humanity with God, receives her constitution from Christ. It is from him that she receives her internal structure and her principles of government. Public opinion cannot, therefore, play in the Church the determinative role that it legitimately plays in the political societies that rely on the principle of popular sovereignty, though it does have a proper role in the Church, as we shall seek to clarify below.

115. The mass media comment frequently on religious affairs. Public interest in matters of faith is a good sign, and the freedom of the press is a basic human right. The Catholic Church is not afraid of discussion or controversy regarding her teaching. On the contrary, she welcomes debate as a manifestation of religious freedom. Everyone is free either to criticise or to support her. Indeed, she recognises that fair and constructive critique can help her to see problems more clearly and to find better solutions. She herself, in turn, is free to criticise unfair attacks, and needs access to the media in order to defend the faith if necessary. She values invitations from independent media to contribute to public debates. She does not want a monopoly of information, but appreciates the plurality and interchange of opinions. She also, however, knows the importance of informing society about the true meaning and content both of her faith and of her moral teaching.

116. The voices of lay people are heard much more frequently now in the Church, sometimes with conservative and sometimes with progressive positions, but generally participating constructively in the life and the mission of the Church. The huge development of society by education has had considerable impact on relations within the Church. The Church herself is engaged worldwide in educational programmes aimed at giving people their own voice and their own rights. It is therefore a good sign if many people today are interested in the teaching, the liturgy and the service of the Church. Many members of the Church want to exercise their own competence, and to participate in their own proper way in the life of the Church. They organise themselves within parishes and in various groups and movements to build up the Church and to influence society at large, and they seek contact via social media with other believers and with people of good will.

117. The new networks of communication both inside and outside the Church call for new forms of attention and critique, and the renewal of skills of discernment. There are influences from special interest groups which are not compatible, or not fully so, with the Catholic faith; there are convictions which are only applicable to a certain place or time; and there are pressures to lessen the role of faith in public debate or to accommodate traditional Christian doctrine to modern concerns and opinions.

118. It is clear that there can be no simple identification between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion. These are by no means the same thing.

i) First of all, the sensus fidei is obviously related to faith, and faith is a gift not necessarily possessed by all people, so the sensus fidei can certainly not be likened to public opinion in society at large. Then also, while Christian faith is, of course, the primary factor uniting members of the Church, many different influences combine to shape the views of Christians living in the modern world. As the above discussion of dispositions implicitly shows, the sensus fidei cannot simply be identified, therefore, with public or majority opinion in the Church, either. Faith, not opinion, is the necessary focus of attention. Opinion is often just an expression, frequently changeable and transient, of the mood or desires of a certain group or culture, whereas faith is the echo of the one Gospel which is valid for all places and times.

ii) In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith. The Old Testament knew the ‘holy remnant’ of believers, sometimes very few in number, over against the kings and priests and most of the Israelites. Christianity itself started as a small minority, blamed and persecuted by public authorities. In the history of the Church, evangelical movements such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, or later the Jesuits, started as small groups treated with suspicion by various bishops and theologians. In many countries today, Christians are under strong pressure from other religions or secular ideologies to neglect the truth of faith and weaken the boundaries of ecclesial community. It is therefore particularly important to discern and listen to the voices of the ‘little ones who believe’ (Mk 9:42).

119. It is undoubtedly necessary to distinguish between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion, hence the need to identify dispositions necessary for participation in the sensus fidei, such as those elaborated above. Nevertheless, it is the whole people of God which, in its inner unity, confesses and lives the true faith. The magisterium and theology must work constantly to renew the presentation of the faith in different situations, confronting if necessary dominant notions of Christian truth with the actual truth of the Gospel, but it must be recalled that the experience of the Church shows that sometimes the truth of the faith has been conserved not by the efforts of theologians or the teaching of the majority of bishops but in the hearts of believers.

c) Ways of consulting the faithful

120. There is a genuine equality of dignity among all the faithful, because through their baptism they are all reborn in Christ. ‘Because of this equality they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to the building up of the Body of Christ.’[133] Therefore, all the faithful ‘have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church’. ‘They have the right to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reference to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.’[134] Accordingly, the faithful, and specifically the lay people, should be treated by the Church’s pastors with respect and consideration, and consulted in an appropriate way for the good of the Church.

121. The word ‘consult’ includes the idea of seeking a judgment or advice as well as inquiring into a matter of fact. On the one hand, in matters of governance and pastoral issues, the pastors of the Church can and should consult the faithful in certain cases in the sense of asking for their advice or their judgment. On the other hand, when the magisterium is defining a doctrine, it is appropriate to consult the faithful in the sense of inquiring into a matter of fact, ‘because the body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and because their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church’.[135]

122. The practice of consulting the faithful is not new in the life of the Church. In the medieval Church a principle of Roman law was used: Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (what affects everyone, should be discussed and approved by all). In the three domains of the life of the Church (faith, sacraments, governance), ‘tradition combined a hierarchical structure with a concrete regime of association and agreement’, and this was considered to be an ‘apostolic practice’ or an ‘apostolic tradition’.[136]

123. Problems arise when the majority of the faithful remain indifferent to doctrinal or moral decisions taken by the magisterium or when they positively reject them. This lack of reception may indicate a weakness or a lack of faith on the part of the people of God, caused by an insufficiently critical embrace of contemporary culture. But in some cases it may indicate that certain decisions have been taken by those in authority without due consideration of the experience and the sensus fidei of the faithful, or without sufficient consultation of the faithful by the magisterium.[137]

124. It is only natural that there should be a constant communication and regular dialogue on practical issues and matters of faith and morals between members of the Church. Public opinion is an important form of that communication in the Church. ‘Since the Church is a living body, she needs public opinion in order to sustain a giving and taking between her members. Without this, she cannot advance in thought and action.’[138] This endorsement of a public exchange of thought and opinions in the Church was given soon after Vatican II, precisely on the basis of the council’s teaching on the sensus fidei and on Christian love, and the faithful were strongly encouraged to take an active part in that public exchange. ‘Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds which stems from a “feeling for the faith” [i.e. the sensus fidei] and from love. It stems from that feeling for the faith which is aroused and nourished by the spirit of truth in order that, under the guidance of the teaching Church which they accept with reverence, the People of God may cling unswervingly to the faith given to the early Church, with true judgement penetrate its meaning more deeply, and apply it more fully in their lives [Lumen Gentium, 12]. This freedom also stems from love. For it is with love that … the People of God are raised to an intimate sharing in the freedom of Christ Himself, who cleansed us from our sins, in order that we might be able freely to make judgements in accordance with the will of God. Those who exercise authority in the Church will take care to ensure that there is responsible exchange of freely held and expressed opinion among the People of God. More than this, they will set up norms and conditions for this to take place.’[139]

125. Such public exchange of opinion is a prime means by which, in a normal way, the sensus fidelium can be gauged. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, various institutional instruments by which the faithful may more formally be heard and consulted have been established, such as particular councils, to which priests and others of Christ’s faithful may be invited,[140] diocesan synods, to which the diocesan bishop may also invite lay people as members,[141] the pastoral council of each diocese, which is ‘composed of members of Christ’s faithful who are in full communion with the Catholic Church: clerics, members of institutes of consecrated life, and especially lay people’,[142] and pastoral councils in parishes, in which ‘Christ’s faithful, together with those who by virtue of their office are engaged in pastoral care in the parish, give their help in fostering pastoral action’.[143]

126. Structures of consultation such as those mentioned above can be greatly beneficial to the Church, but only if pastors and lay people are mutually respectful of one another’s charisms and if they carefully and continually listen to one another’s experiences and concerns. Humble listening at all levels and proper consultation of those concerned are integral aspects of a living and lively Church.


Conclusion

127. Vatican II was a new Pentecost,[144] equipping the Church for the new evangelisation that popes since the council have called for. The council gave a renewed emphasis to the traditional idea that all of the baptised have a sensus fidei, and the sensus fidei constitutes a most important resource for the new evangelisation.[145] By means of the sensus fidei, the faithful are able not only to recognise what is in accordance with the Gospel and to reject what is contrary to it, but also to sense what Pope Francis has called ‘new ways for the journey’ in faith of the whole pilgrim people. One of the reasons why bishops and priests need to be close to their people on the journey and to walk with them is precisely so as to recognise ‘new ways’ as they are sensed by the people.[146] The discernment of such new ways, opened up and illumined by the Holy Spirit, will be vital for the new evangelisation.

128. The sensus fidei is closely related to the ‘infallibilitas in credendo’ that the Church as a whole has as a believing ‘subject’ making its pilgrim way in history.[147] Sustained by the Holy Spirit, it enables the witness that the Church gives and the discernment that the members of the Church must constantly make, both as individuals and as a community, of how best to live and act and speak in fidelity to the Lord. It is the instinct by which each and all ‘think with the Church’,[148] sharing one faith and one purpose. It is what unites pastors and people, and makes dialogue between them, based on their respective gifts and callings, both essential and fruitful for the Church.


[1] Pope Francis, Angelus address, 17 March, 2013.

[2] Cf. Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (2013), nn.119-120.

[3] Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from the documents of the Second Vatican Council are taken from Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II, new revised edition (Northport, NY/Dublin: Costello Publishing Company/Dominican Publications, 1996). The following council documents will be identified as shown: Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA), Ad Gentes (AG), Dei Verbum (DV), Gaudium et Spes (GS), Lumen Gentium (LG), Perfectae Caritatis (PC), Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). References to Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 38th ed., edited by Peter Hünermann (1999), are indicated by DH together with the paragraph number; references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) are indicated by CCC together with the paragraph number; and references to J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina (1844-1864) are indicated by PL together with the volume and column numbers.

[4] In its document on The Interpretation of Dogma (1989), the International Theological Commission (ITC) spoke of the ‘sensus fidelium’ as an ‘inner sense’ by means of which the people of God ‘recognise in preaching that the words are God’s not man's and accept and guard them with unbreakable fidelity’ (C, II, 1). The document also highlighted the role played by the consensus fidelium in the interpretation of dogma (C, II, 4).

[5] In its recent document entitled Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria (2012), the ITC identified the sensus fidei as a fundamental locus or reference point for theology (n.35).

[6] Theology Today, §13.

[7] Tertullian, De oratione, I, 6; Corpus Christianorum, series latina (hereafter CCSL), 1, p.258.

[8] Yves M.-J. Congar identifies various doctrinal questions in which the sensus fidelium was used in Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1953), 450-53; ET: Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of Lay People (London: Chapman, 1965), Appendix II: The ‘Sensus Fidelium’ in the Fathers, 465-67.

[9] Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, 21 and 28, CCSL 1, pp.202-203 and 209.

[10] Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum, XIV, 27 (PL 44, 980). He says this with reference to the canonicity of the book of Wisdom.

[11] Augustine, Contra epistolam Parmeniani, III, 24 (PL 43, 101). Cf. De baptismo, IV, xxiv, 31 (PL 43, 174) (with regard to the baptism of infants): ‘Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, nonnisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur’.

[12] Cassian, De incarnatione Christi, I, 6 (PL 50, 29-30): ‘Sufficere ergo solus nunc ad confutandum haeresim deberet consensus omnium, quia indubitatae veritatis manifestatio est auctoritas universorum’.

[13] Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium II, 5 (CCSL, 64, p.149).

[14] Jerome, Adversus Vigilantium 5 (CCSL 79C, p.11-13).

[15] Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion haereticorum, 78, 6; Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Epiphanius, Bd 3, p.456.

[16] Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, XX, 3 (CCSL 36, p.204); Ennaratio in psalmum 120, 7 (PL 37, 1611).

[17] John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, edited with an introduction by John Coulson (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1961), pp.75-101; at 75 and 77. See also his The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833; 3rd ed. 1871). Congar expresses some caution with regard to the use of Newman’s analysis of this matter; see, Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.395; ET: Lay People in the Church, pp.285-6.

[18] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.104.

[19] See DH 1000.

[20] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.70.

[21] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.9, s.c.; IIIa, q.83, a.5, s.c. (with regard to the liturgy of the Mass); Quodl. IX, q.8 (with regard to canonisation). Cf. also Bonaventure, Commentaria in IV librum Sententiarum, d.4, p.2, dub. 2 (Opera omnia, vol.4, Quaracchi, 1889, p.105): ‘[Fides Ecclesiae militantis] quamvis possit deficere in aliquibus personis specialiter, generaliter tamen numquam deficit nec deficiet, iuxta illud Matthaei ultimo: “Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consumationem saeculi”’; d.18, p.2, a. un. q.4 (p.490). In Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.2, a.6, ad 3, St Thomas links this indefectibility of the universal Church to Jesus’ promise to Peter that his faith would not fail (Lk 22:32).

[22] Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.10; q.11, a.2, ad 3.

[23] See Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praecludium, WA 6, 566-567, and John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, IV, 8, 11; the promises of Christ are found in Mt 28:19 and Jn 14: 16, 17.

[24] See Gustav Thils, L’Infaillibilité du Peuple chrétien ‘in credendo’: Notes de théologie post-tridentine (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963).

[25] DH 1637; see also, DH 1726. For equivalent expressions, see Yves M.-J. Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II. Essai théologique (Paris: Fayard, 1963), pp.82-83; ET, Tradition and Traditions (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 315-17.

[26] De locis theologicis, ed. Juan Belda Plans (Madrid, 2006). Cano lists ten loci: Sacra Scriptura, traditiones Christi et apostolorum, Ecclesia Catholica, Concilia, Ecclesia Romana, sancti veteres, theologi scholastici, ratio naturalis, philosophi, humana historia.

[27] De locis theol., Bk. IV, ch. 3 (Plans ed., p.117). ‘Si quidquam est nunc in Ecclesia communi fidelium consensione probatum, quod tamen humana potestas efficere non potuit, id ex apostolorum traditione necessario derivatum est.’

[28] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (pp.144-46).

[29] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (p.149): ‘Non solum Ecclesia universalis, id est, collectio omnium fidelium hunc veritatis spiritum semper habet, sed eundem habent etiam Ecclesiae principes et pastores’. In Book VI, Cano affirms the authority of the Roman pontiff when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra.

[30] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (pp.150-51): ‘Priores itaque conclusiones illud astruebant, quicquid ecclesia, hoc est, omnium fidelium concio teneret, id verum esse. Haec autem illud affirmat pastores ecclesiae doctores in fide errare non posse, sed quicquid fidelem populum docent, quod ad Christi fidem attineat, esse verissimum.’

[31] Robert Bellarmine, De controversiis christianae fidei (Venice, 1721), II, I, lib.3, cap.14: ‘Et cum dicimus Ecclesiam non posse errare, id intelligimus tam de universitate fidelium quam de universitate Episcoporum, ita ut sensus sit eius propositionis, ecclesia non potest errare, idest, id quod tenent omnes fideles tanquam de fide, necessario est verum et de fide; et similiter id quod docent omnes Episcopi tanquam ad fidem pertinens, necessario est verum et de fide’ (p.73).

[32] De controversiis II, I, lib.2, cap.2: ‘Concilium generale repraesentat Ecclesiam universam, et proinde consensum habet Ecclesiae universalis; quare si Ecclesia non potest errare, neque Concilium oecumenicum, legitimum et approbatum, potest errare’ (p.28).

[33] J. A. Möhler, Die Einheit in der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus [1825], ed. J. R. Geiselmann (Cologne and Olten: Jakob Hegner, 1957), 8ff., 50ff.

[34] J. A. Möhler, Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten, nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften [1832], ed. J.R. Geiselmann (Cologne and Olten: Jakob Hegner, 1958), §38. Against the Protestant principle of private interpretation, he reasserted the significance of the judgment of the whole Church.

[35] In 1847, Newman met Perrone and they discussed Newman’s ideas about the development of doctrine. Newman used the notion of the sensus ecclesiae in this context. Cf. T. Lynch, ed., ‘The Newman-Perrone Paper on Development’, Gregorianum 16 (1935), pp.402-447, esp. ch.3, nn.2, 5.

[36] Ioannis Perrone, De Immaculato B. V. Mariae Conceptu an Dogmatico Decreto definiri possit (Romae, 1847), 139, 143-145. Perrone concluded that the Christian faithful would be ‘deeply scandalised’ if Mary’s Immaculate Conception were ‘even mildly questioned’ (p.156). He found other instances in which the magisterium relied on the sensus fidelium for its doctrinal definitions, e.g. the doctrine that the souls of the just enjoy the beatific vision already prior to the resurrection of the dead (pp.147-148).

[37] See Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Letter, Ubi primum (1849), n.6.

[38] Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus (1854).

[39] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, pp.70-71.

[40] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63, cf. p.65. Newman usually distinguishes the ‘pastors’ and the ‘faithful’. Sometimes he adds the ‘doctors’ (theologians) as a distinct class of witnesses, and he includes the lower clergy among the ‘faithful’ unless he specifies the ‘lay faithful’.

[41] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.104.

[42] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, pp.64-70; cf. above, §37.

[43] Mansi, III (51), 542-543. It asserts that the Church’s infallibility extends to all revealed truth, in Scripture and in Tradition - i.e., to the Deposit of Faith - and to whatever is necessary for defending and preserving it, even though not revealed.

[44] Mansi, IV (52), 1213-14.

[45] Ibid., 1217. Gasser adds: ‘sed talis casus non potest statui pro regula’.

[46] DH 3074. One of the ‘Four Articles’ of the Gallican position asserted that the Pope’s judgment ‘is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church be given to it’.

[47] See Gasser, in Mansi, 52, 1213-14.

[48] The condemned proposition reads: ‘The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning”’ (DH 3406).

[49] Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[50] Munificentissimus Deus, n.41

[51] Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[52] See Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, chapter 6. The scheme is found in the Preface of the third edition of Newman’s Via Media (1877).

[53] Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.398; ET, Lay People in the Church, 288.

[54] Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.399; ET, Lay People in the Church, 289.

[55] LG 4.

[56] LG 12. In several other places, the council refers to the ‘sense’ of believers or of the Church in a way analogous to the sensus fidei of LG 12. It refers to the sensus Ecclesiae (DV 23), sensus apostolicus (AA 25), sensus catholicus (AA 30), sensus Christi et Ecclesiae and sensus communionis cum Ecclesia (AG 19), sensus christianus fidelium (GS 52), and to an integer christianus sensus (GS 62).

[57] LG 35.

[58] DV 8.

[59] DV 10; cf. Ineffabilis Deus, n.18, and Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[60] See, e.g., Pope John Paul II’s teaching in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici (1988), that all the faithful share in Christ’s threefold office, and his reference to the laity being ‘sharers in the appreciation of the Church’s supernatural faith (sensum fidei supernaturalis Ecclesiae) that “cannot err in matters of belief” [LG 12]’ (n.14); also, with reference to the teaching of LG 12, 35, and DV 8, the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), n.2.

[61] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1981), n.5. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis (1990), the CDF cautioned against identifying ‘the opinion of a large number of Christians’ with the sensus fidei: the sensus fidei is ‘a property of theological faith’ and a gift of God which enables a Christian ‘to adhere personally to the Truth’, so that what he or she believes is what the Church believes. Since not all the opinions held by believers spring from faith, and since many people are swayed by public opinion, it is necessary to emphasise, as the council did, the ‘indissoluble bond between the “sensus fidei” and the guidance of God’s People by the Magisterium of the Pastors’ (n.35).

[62] The sensus fidei fidelis presupposes in the believer the virtue of faith. In fact, it is the lived experience of faith which enables the believer to discern whether a doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith or not. It is therefore only rather broadly and derivatively that the discernment necessary for the initial act of faith can be attributed to the sensus fidei fidelis.

[63] CCC 1804.

[64] Vatican II, PC 12.

[65] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.45, a.2.

[66] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.4, ad 3. Cf. IIa-IIae, q.2, a.3, ad 2.

[67] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.23, q.3, a.3, qla 2, ad 2: ‘Habitus fidei cum non rationi innitatur, inclinat per modum naturae, sicut et habitus moralium virtutum, et sicut habitus principiorum; et ideo quamdiu manet, nihil contra fidem credit.’

[68] Cf. J. A. Möhler, Symbolik, §38: ‘Der göttliche Geist, welchem die Leitung und Belebung der Kirche anvertraut ist, wird in seiner Vereinigung mit dem menschlichen ein eigenthümlich christlicher Tact, ein tiefes, sicher führendes Gefühl, das, wie er in der Wahrheit steht, auch aller Wahrheit entgegenleitet.’

[69] Because of its immediate relationship to its object, instinct does not err. In itself, it is infallible. However, animal instinct is infallible only within the context of a determined environment. When the context changes, animal instinct can show itself to be maladjusted. Spiritual instinct, on the other hand, has more scope and subtlety.

[70] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.3, ad 3.

[71] CDF, Donum Veritatis, n.35.

[72] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.2, a.5-8.

[73] LG 15.

[74] Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super Ioannis evangelium, c.14, lect.4 (Marietti, n.1916).

[75] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §§91-92.

[76] DV 8. In the theology of the gifts of the Spirit that St Thomas developed, it is particularly the gift of knowledge that perfects the sensus fidei fidelis as an aptitude to discern what is to be believed. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.9, a.1 co. et ad 2.

[77] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q.14, a.10, ad 10; cf. Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 2, ad 3.

[78] Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 4, ad 3: ‘[The believer] must not give assent to a prelate who preaches against the faith…. The subordinate is not totally excused by his ignorance. In fact, the habitus of faith inclines him against such preaching because that habitus necessarily teaches whatever leads to salvation. Also, because one must not give credence too easily to every spirit, one should not give assent to strange preaching but should seek further information or simply entrust oneself to God without seeking to venture into the secrets of God beyond one’s capacities.’

[79] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 2, ad 3; Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q.14, a.11, ad 2.

[80] See above, §30.

[81] See Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, pp.81-101, on ‘L’“Ecclesia”, sujet de la Tradition’, and pp.101-108, on ‘Le Saint-Esprit, Sujet transcendant de la Tradition’; ET, Tradition and Traditions, pp.314-338, on ‘The “Ecclesia” as the Subject of Tradition’, and pp.338-346, on ‘The Holy Spirit, the Transcendent Subject of Tradition’.

[82] See above, §3.

[83] DV 10 (amended translation).

[84] DV 8; cf. also, LG 12, 37; AA 2, 3; GS 43.

[85] GS 44 (amended translation).

[86] See above, Chapter One, part 2.

[87] Cf. DH 2722-2724.

[88] See below, Chapter Four.

[89] LG 12.

[90] Cf. LG 10, 34.

[91] Cf. LG 21, 26; SC 41.

[92] Cf. SC 10; LG 11.

[93] CCC 1124. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer., IV, 18, 5 (Sources chrétiennes, vol.100, p.610): ‘Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking’ (see also CCC, n.1327).

[94] DV 8.

[95] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63.

[96] Cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, DH 3051.

[97] Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch.4 (DH 3074).

[98] See above, §40.

[99] See above, §§38, 42.

[100] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §35.

[101] DV 8.

[102] See below, §§107-112.

[103] See below, Chapter Four.

[104] ITC, Theology Today, §35; cf. CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis (1990), nn.2-5, 6-7.

[105] Cf. Theology Today, §35.

[106] Particularly notable in this regard are the indicated sections of the following agreed statements: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority (2007; the Ravenna Statement), n.7; Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Gift of Authority (1999), n.29; Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 1977-1984, Report, chapter 1.3; Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue, The Church as Communion in Christ (1992), nn.40, 45; International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, The Word of Life (1995), nn.56, 58.

[107] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint (1995), n.3.

[108] See above, §56.

[109] Cf. LG 8.

[110] Ut Unum Sint, n.14; cf. nn.28, 57, where Pope John Paul refers to the ‘exchange of gifts’ that occurs in ecumenical dialogue. In its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, Communionis Notio (1992), the CDF similarly acknowledges that the Catholic Church is herself ‘injured’ by the loss of communion with the other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities (n.17).

[111] Cf. LG 12; DV 8.

[112] LG 12, with reference to 1Thess 2:13.

[113] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (1998).

[114] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §§63, 64, 84.

[115] See above, §§74-80.

[116] DV 10.

[117] Cf. LG, chapter 5, on ‘The universal vocation to holiness in the Church’.

[118] CCC 963.

[119] Cf. GS 11, 22.

[120] DV 5 (amended translation).

[121] Cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.5.

[122] Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines (2001), n.10: ‘“Popular religiosity” refers to a universal experience: there is always a religious dimension in the hearts of people, nations, and their collective expressions. All peoples tend to give expression to their totalising view of the transcendent, their concept of nature, society, and history through cultic means. Such characteristic syntheses are of major spiritual and human importance.’

[123] CELAM, Third General Conference (Puebla, 1979), Final Document, n.448, as quoted in CCC 1676.

[124] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.125.

[125] Joseph Ratzinger, Commento teologico, in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Il messaggio di Fatima (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 2000), p.35; as quoted in CDWDS, Directory, n.91.

[126] CDWDS, Directory, n.50.

[127] SC 13.

[128] Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), n.48. Congar referred to ‘engouements douteux et dévotions aberrantes’, and cautioned: ‘On se gardera de trop attribuer au sensus fidelium: non seulement au regard des prérogatives de la hiérarchie …, mais en soi’ (Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat, p.399; ET, Lay People in the Church, p.288).

[129] Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), n.48. In his discourse at the opening of CELAM’s fourth general conference (Santo Domingo, 12 October 1992), Pope John Paul said that, with its ‘essentially catholic roots’, popular religiosity in Latin America was ‘an antidote against the sects and a guarantee of fidelity to the message of salvation’ (n.12). With reference to the Final Document of the Third General Conference of CELAM, Pope Francis states that, when the Christian faith is truly inculturated, ‘popular piety’ is an important part of the process by which ‘a people continuously evangelises itself’ (Evangelii Gaudium, n.122).

[130] See above, §2.

[131] Cf. Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, n.58; with reference to the need to ensure that communautés de base were truly ecclesial.

[132] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.126.

[133] Code of Canon Law, can.208.

[134] Code of Canon Law, can.212, §3.

[135] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63; for the double meaning of the word ‘consult’, see pp.54-55.

[136] Y. Congar, ‘Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet’, in Revue historique de droit français et étranger 36(1958), pp.210-259, ptic. pp.224-228.

[137] See above, §§78-80.

[138] Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication written by Order of the Second Vatican Council, ‘Communio et Progressio’ (1971), n.115, which also cites Pope Pius XII: ‘Something would be lacking in [the Church’s] life if she had no public opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this’ (Allocution, 17 February 1950, AAS XVIII[1950], p.256).

[139] ‘Communio et Progressio’, n.116.

[140] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can.443, §4.

[141] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can.463, §2.

[142] Code of Canon Law, can.512, §1.

[143] Code of Canon Law, can.536, §1.

[144] This was a phrase repeatedly used by Pope John XXIII when he expressed his hopes and prayers for the coming council; see, e.g., Apostolic Constitution, Humanae Salutis (1961), n.23.

[145] Cf. above, §§2, 45, 65, 70, 112.

[146] Cf. Pope Francis, Address to clergy, persons in consecrated life and members of pastoral councils, San Rufino, Assisi, 4 October 2013. The pope added that diocesan synods, particular celebrations of ‘walking together’ as disciples of the Lord, need to take account of ‘what the Holy Spirit is saying to the laity, to the people of God, [and] to all’.

[147] Interview with Pope Francis by Fr Antonio Spadaro, 21 September 2013; cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.119.

[148] Interview with Pope Francis by Fr Antonio Spadaro; cf. above, §90.

top

TWO EXCELLENT POSTS BY FATHER DWIGHT LONGENECKER

$
0
0

It was April 19, 2005 and the world’s eyes were fixed on a small chimney jutting out from the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Within the dazzling walls of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, a papal conclave was convened and casting votes for a new Bishop of Rome. An international icon and beloved shepherd to the Catholic faithful, Pope John Paul II, had died after suffering the ravages of Parkinson’s disease. In his wake, Rome and the world witnessed a holy funeral of emotionally and spiritually-epic proportions. After twenty-six profound years, a deep chasm opened in the Seat of Peter. Now, untold millions worldwide sought to discern whether the smoke emitting from the chapel chimney was “fumata nera” (black smoke) indicating a failed vote or “fumata blanca” (white smoke) indicating a successful selection of a new Pope. Even the most hard-bitten atheist could not deny that there was something mesmerizing about this process. Perhaps the cynic could best characterize this spectacle as medieval showmanship at its finest, but to the believing Catholic (a title I resolutely claim) it was an ancient practice infiltrated with the Holy Spirit to arrive at a Successor of Peter, the Rock upon which the Church was and continues to be built. It was extraordinary. And it wouldn’t take long.

After merely four ballots, the masses saw what they eagerly anticipated: fumata blanca. Cheers erupted. Shortly thereafter, an anxious wait would ensue with fixed attention on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica. Cardinal Medina Estevez would emerge and announce to the world in numerous languages, “Dear Brothers and Sisters…” followed by the universal Latin, “Habemus Papum!”. Indeed, “We have a Pope.” And so we would meet for the first time, Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2005, I was still four years away from becoming a Catholic. Still a Lutheran at the time, my wife and I were alternating Sundays between Catholic and Lutheran churches. Admittedly, I had drawn closer to the Catholic Church in the nine years since my wife and I had been together, and my appreciation for the papacy (having once been, instead, a deep skepticism) had grown over years by watching, reading and comprehending the figure of Pope John Paul II (please see my previous post: 
“Man of the Year – Why the Pope Matters" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acatholicthinker/2012/12/02/man-of-the-year-why-the-pope-matters/). However, in spite of the inexorable draw I felt toward Catholicism, it was very hard to ignore the relentless negative commentary offered by the media’s opinion-makers on who Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, really was. “God’s Rottweiler”, “The Panzer Pope”, “The Inquisitor” were just a few of the derogatory names spilling out in the weeks in advance and following the selection of this new pope.  Being relatively new to the papal selection proceedings (and especially as a fledgling and prospective Catholic), I found this offensive and simultaneously unsettling. It was offensive that this holy and ancient practice was being tainted by such a careless casting of aspersions and epithets. And yet, it was unsettling because I wasn’t wholeheartedly immune to the influence of the “storied” media opinion-makers. After all, at one point, I myself carried unfounded biases against the Catholic Church. So it had to be asked – What was the world – what was I – to make of Pope Benedict XVI? It was from this point forward that Pope Benedict XVI would surprise me…again and again.
One of the first lessons I learned about the Catholic Church is that you have to experience it to understand it. As I’ve written in previous posts on this site, I carried a number of latent biases with me as a young Protestant. These latent biases became active when my wife and I first discussed our religious future together in the late 1990s. In spite of my proud and stubborn stances, it wasn’t until I attended Catholic Mass Sunday after Sunday, read the Catholic Catechism, explored the works of the saints and apologists, prayed, and spoke with wise and kind members of the Faith that I truly grasped the wonder and beauty of Catholicism. This process taught me a thing or two – most notably that you need to find out the truth for yourself. It isn’t easy. It requires time, energy, and devotion to finding answers that you may not like or may prove you wrong. But it is the most valuable and rewarding endeavor you could ever embark on. In a few words, it utterly humbles you. If this process served me well in exploring Catholicism (in spite of all the criticism surrounding it as a Faith), shouldn’t it serve me well in understanding the Church’s new leadership? Pope John Paul II surprised and impressed me once I had explored his biography and writings. Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI would as well. Indeed…he would.
Joseph Ratzinger would grow up under very difficult and trying circumstances. Raised in Hitler’s Germany by strong Catholic, anti-Nazi parents was quite difficult and led to great risk and moral dilemmas. Conscripted as a child to the Hitler Youth and ultimately to an anti-aircraft brigade (age 16) during the war, Joseph would ultimately desert (at great risk) toward the war’s end. Some of the accusations of Joseph as a complicit Nazi were scurrilous [an example being the doctoring of the picture of the young priest Ratzinger giving his first blessing (first picture) so as to make it look like a Nazi salute (second picture)].


Joseph would pursue the priesthood and demonstrate an early brilliance in theology. In short order, he would become a widely respected academic theologian and pivotal player at Vatican II.

His voice for reform in the wake of Vatican II would transform in the tumult of the 1960s where he perceived a cultural and religious untethering from church authority that risked rupture with the accumulated spirit and wisdom of two thousand years. In response to a more liberal, reform-minded journal, Concilium, Joseph would co-found a more conservative, traditional journal, Communio, with some of the brightest Catholic thinkers of the 20th century.

His writings were legion and would range from the liturgy to sacred art, from the cardinal virtues to the role of faith and reason. Through the end of his papacy, he would write at least 66 books, thousands of articles and hundreds of speeches. His work has been respected across religious, national, and cultural boundaries. He has been known for a willingness to thoughtfully and politely dialogue even with those whom he would most disagree. Given his devotion to his faith and his inquisitive, yet sensitive demeanor, Joseph would rise quickly to leadership positions within the Church. Joseph Ratzinger was an intellectual and spiritual giant.

As Pope, Benedict XVI would surprise with speeches and writings, projects and gestures that one may not have anticipated. His speech just prior to conclave (when, technically, still a Cardinal) on the “Dictatorship of Relativism” articulated the ideological dangers of moral relativism:
“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith.”
The famous Regensburg lecture was a brilliant dissertation on the inextricable link between faith and reason. The Pope would submit that irrational, damaging, and destructive acts performed in the name of God are, in fact, utterly contrary to God’s faithful and reasonable nature:
“[Here are the] reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, [the emperor - in Pope Benedict's example] says, “is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”
His encyclicals were devoted to the supernatural virtues of Love and Hope. Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) is considered a masterpiece of reconciliation between Catholic ethics and business economy. He sought to reinforce Vatican II as continuous with and not a rupture from the pre-Conciliar Church by reinvigorating the practice of the Latin (Tridentine) Mass, reforming the Roman Missal to be more faithful to the original Latin, and inviting more traditional sacred music into the liturgy. The Pope sought to reach out to the disaffected such as Society of St. Pius X as well as extending reconciliation with priests/churches of the Anglican communion. At the same time, he held firmly that religious orders must avoid abuses and hold themselves faithful to Church teachings. He built further bridges in dialogues with the Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities. Among many, the Pope beatified John Henry Newman and Pope John Paul II and canonized Native American Kateri Tekakwitha. He presided over the annual Youth Days with massive attendance, the publication of the first Youth Catechism, and offered up the first Papal “tweets”. He would also importantly and indispensably meet with, grieve with, and apologize for the horrors of the priest sex abuse scandals within the Church. For what was originally considered to be a short-lived, minimally consequential, caretaker papacy, Pope Benedict XVI dramatically surprised and delighted me.

Perhaps, however, what I have found most surprising and endearing is Pope Benedict XVI’s approachability. In the face of caustic and withering criticism that, upon further honest examination, was unfair and unjustified, the Pope has proved to be a very decent person. Journalist Vittorio Messori, author Peter Seewald, or atheist politician Marcello Pera, were all struck, contrary to their preconceived notions, at how kind, thoughtful, and approachable they found Joseph Ratzinger. I encountered this same man – Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI – when reading Peter Seewald’s trilogy of book-length interviews, God and the World, Salt of the Earth, and Light of the World. It is easy to become completely transfixed by the kind, clear, and thoughtful answers of an intellectual giant who sees himself as a humble servant of the Lord.
And so now it is the last day of Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy. Now we prepare for another conclave and watch again for fumata blanca. And as I reflect on the Pope who was presented to me by the opinion-makers while comparing him to the Pope I met for myself, the questions can be raised, “Are you surprised? Are you surprised by the Pope you found, you learned from, you prayed for, and you converted under?” And my answer would be: Yes and No. Yes, I thought I could trust the opinion-makers to be somewhat correct on who Pope Benedict XVI was and who he would become. They were wrong and so I was surprised. But, more importantly, No, because surprise is what this Faith is all about. It is a Faith where disciples ask to walk on water and multiply loaves and fishes, where lepers are healed and the condemned are released, where you love even though it is unreasonable and you believe even when it is unbelievable. It is a Faith of confounding, maddening, brilliant, glorious surprises. And Pope Benedict XVI has been another one of them. Why shouldn’t he be? Thank you, Holy Father, and God go with you.

Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis & the Greatest Friendship Imaginable
July 16, 2014 By Tod Worner 




I had never heard the term before. Opera Omnia. But, boy, did it sound impressive. It was in the Fall of 2008. Pope Benedict XVI was in the third year of his papacy and the first volume of his Opera Omnia was being presented at the Vatican. I would soon learn that Opera Omnia, literally translated, means “all (or complete) works”. And this Pope’s works go deep. Sixteen volumes deep to be exact. From his earliest formative years as a fledgling priest to his most recent seasoned years as a deeply respected theologian, Pope Benedict XVI could never be accused of being an intellectual lightweight. In fact, in penning volumes addressing topics such as ecclesiology, eschatology and the theology of the liturgy, Benedict has at times been labeled an aloof academic, a denizen of the theological ivory tower too far removed from the true concerns of his Catholic flock.
As a Catholic who converted under Pope Benedict in 2009, I remember too well the harsher monikers affixed to this Pope in 2005 when he (as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) was being considered “papabile” (or a papal candidate, literally “pope-able”) in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s death. Epithets such as The Panzer Pope, God’s Rottweiler, The German Shepherd became common parlance among the news media. Once elected, Pope Benedict XVI led the Church from 2005 to 2013 after which he humbly stepped aside for a “younger” Pope to step in with physical strength that he admitted he was lacking. That man would be Pope Francis. And while Pope Francis has warmly manifested a style of his own informed by a spirited and humble charity, inevitable comparisons would be made by naysayers who found in Pope Francis the virtue and in Pope Benedict XVI the vice (I write about this in my previous post, Loving Francis, Missing Benedict). Before long, an image began to emerge of a lovable, fatherly, saintly Francis contrasted against a shifty, sneering, punitive Benedict. Hmmm. How curious.
And it all made wonder, did these detractors ever read Benedict? Before I began my road to Catholicism, I would have joined in this exercise of criticism. After all, I originally felt that the papacy was little more than a Pharisee-like exercise in theological pomp and circumstance. Even more, I would likely have subscribed to the caricature of Pope Benedict XVI because those caustic representations would have deliciously satisfied my preconceived notions of just one more thing I didn’t want to like about the Catholic Church. But my journey (with my ever-respectful, faith-filled wife and my dear, insightful friend) through years of Mass, prayer, conversations with priests and friends, and reading the luminaries of the faith helped me discover the richness of the Catholic Faith and the deep and indispensable role of the Pope in the Church and the world, (for more on this, please read my previous post Man of the Year – Why the Pope Matters).
And so, having given Catholicism a second look and finding myself awestruck by what I found, it was important for me to honestly and fairly re-approach God’s Rottweiler, The German Shepherd, the author of this immense Opera Omnia. Generally, what I found was described in my previous post, Pope Benedict XVI and Surprise. But I felt a few words needed to be shared in light of the comparions being made between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has taken the world by storm. With an ever-present smile, affable demeanor and boundless energy, Pope Francis has waded deep into crushing crowds, ridden in tiny open-windowed cars through delirious throngs of the faithful, and (reportedly) embarked on clandestine late night outings to minister to the needy on dark Roman streets. He has given off-the-cuff interviews, engaged in thoughtful debates with his deepest critics, and shocked people simply by dialing them up on the phone. In his speeches and writings, he exudes love, faith and hope. He truly is a faith-filled shepherd.

And Pope Benedict XVI? If you were to read the broadest coverage of his pontificate, it was reputedly dominated by high-brow consideration of arcane theological esoterica, flush with intolerant condemnation of the jots and tittles of the Catholic Faith, and characterized by a pious remove from the real world problems of “the least of these”? If you were to believe these writers gleefully contrasting the current pope with the former, then, indeed, This. Is. Pope Benedict XVI. 
But, you see, this ISN’T Pope Benedict XVI. This Pope who penned the sixteen volumes’ worth of theological writings, also:
welcomed babies,
blessed the disabled,
and waded into crowds.

But to understand what this somewhat shy and deeply thoughtful Pope held dearly, we must turn to the prized works of the mind and spirit that make up his Opera Omnia. What will we find there? Minutiae pertaining to the liturgy? Some. Arcana on eschatology? Yes. Subtleties of ecclesiology? Quite likely. But there is a more overwhelming message that suffuses his work: Friendship with Christ.

“Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moralism. Christianity is an encounter, a love story; it is an event.”&“The person gains himself by losing himself in God.”&“Christianity is not a new philosophy or new morality. We are Christians only if we encounter Christ… Only in this personal relationship with Christ, only in this encounter with the Risen One do we really become Christians.”&“For each one of you, as for the apostles, the encounter with the divine Teacher who calls you friends may be the beginning of an extraordinary venture: that of becoming apostles among your contemporaries to lead them to live their own experience of friendship with God, made Man, with God who has made himself my friend.”&“Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An “adult” faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth.”
Over and over again, you hear Pope Benedict XVI illustrate a warm, inviting, merciful theme of friendship with Christ. God is not an abstraction. He is here. And He is our friend, our guide, our advocate. It is difficult at times to live (and die) for a Creed, even though we do. It seems infinitely more sensible and tangible to do so for a Person. As Flannery O’Connor once observed about the the abstract vs. tangible experience of faith,
“Our response to life is different if we have been taught only a definition of faith than if we have trembled with Abraham as he held a knife over Isaac.”
Pope Benedict XVI sought to reintroduce us to the person of Christ – the person of Christ who came into history and then transcended it, the person of Christ who welled up with love and winced with pain, the person of Christ who peered with infinite love and mercy into the eager eyes of Peter, the treacherous eyes of Judas and the tearing eyes of Mary. And what did he say to all of them?
“No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
- John 15:13
“I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends…”
- John 15:15
Christ would lay his life down for us. But before doing so, he would befriend us. As friends of Christ, we are dignified and valuable, comforted and encouraged, taught and mentored. But we are also disciplined and held accountable. This friend – this Christ – never, ever turns away, but he bids us come and follow him.
Now isn’t that something? The Pope who is derided as the Rottweiler disciplinarian, the detached intellectual, the malevolent Hyde to Pope Francis’ earnest Jekyll…that same Pope, in his own style and deep substance, simply wanted us to cultivate the greatest friendship we could ever imagine. Perhaps, yes perhaps, that is what Pope Benedict XVI’s entire papacy was about. Friendship with Christ. 
Huh.
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis are good men with deep substance and particular styles. They are both devoted and faithful disciples of Christ. And, together, they are his friends. Are we?
Now if you’ll excuse me. I have a bit of reading to do.





THE AFTERLIFE ACCORDING TO AN ORTHODOX SAINT

DOM ODO CASEL and DOM ILDEFONS HERWEGEN: TWO GLORIES OF THE BENEDICTINE ORDER

$
0
0


Odo Casel: prophet and mystagogue
by Hugh Gilbert OSB 



Who was Odo Casel?

Odo Casel's is hardly a household name, nor is it ever likely to be. He was, after all, a monk and spent the greater part of his monastic life as chaplain to a community of Benedictine nuns - not usually a high-road to celebrity. And yet from this obscure monk issued what Cardinal Ratzinger called "perhaps the most fruitful theological idea of our century" (ie the 20th), while for the eminent French Dominican liturgist, Pierre-Marie Gy, it was Casel who gave the strongest impulse of anyone to the sacramental theology of the 20th century, and in the view of the English Dominican, Aidan Nichols, Casel should be accounted "a giant among theologians of the Liturgy and a figure raised up by Providence to salvage from perils the worship of the Church…one of the great fathers, I would say the great father of the 20th century liturgical movement". The following article is a small attempt to salvage Dom Odo Casel from his (relative) obscurity. Three questions naturally present themselves: Who was he? What did he say? Is it true?

Johannes Casel was born at Koblenz, in the German Rhineland, on the 27 September 1886. His father was a train-driver. His religion - this was the Catholic Rhineland - was Catholic through and through. After a local primary and secondary education, he went up to Bonn in 1905 to read classics. Among the students there was a young Benedictine, Ildefons Herwegen, who persuaded Johannes to put aside his studies and enter his own Benedictine monastery of Maria Laach, St Mary of the Lake. This was originally an 11th century Benedictine monastery, suppressed in 1802 and restored by Benedictines of the Beuronese Congregation as recently as 1892.

A Benedictine vocation

In 1913 the same Ildefons Herwegen was to become abbot of Laach, to remain such until his death in 1946, and to make of the abbey one of the intellectual and liturgical centers of German Catholicism between the two world wars. Entering the monastery in the autumn of 1905, Casel himself went through the usual stages of monastic initiation, receiving the name Odo, making profession in 1907 and being ordained in 1911. A little less usually (but this is Germany!) he gained, first, a theological doctorate from the Benedictine Athenaeum of Sant' Anselmo in Rome (with a thesis on the eucharistic theology of Justin Martyr, an early sign of his passion for the Fathers of the Church) and then, returning to Bonn, a second philosophical doctorate (with a thesis that revealed his parallel interest in Classical Antiquity, and especially its Mystery Religions).

In 1921, Abbot Herwegen asked Casel to become the editor of the projected Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft (Yearbook for Liturgical Science), which task he acquitted through 15 imposing volumes until wartime shortage of paper precluded further publication in 1941. The editorship was an immense labour in itself. The Jahrbuch is, in fact, one of the great monuments to the intellectual revival of German Catholicism between the two world wars, and it was principally in its pages that Casel - through articles and reviews - was able to articulate, defend and consolidate his own vision of Christian worship. Casel was himself a quiet man, happiest working in his cell or singing in the monastic choir. His output was to be prodigious: one bibliography counts 309 major and minor works.

The obscure life of a convent chaplain

And it is doubtful if this would have been possible had not Abbot Herwegen, again discerningly, sent Dom Odo in 1922 as chaplain to what was then a small convent of nuns devoted to Perpetual Adoration at Herstelle, Westphalia. There he had the leisure to study and write. There, too, he had the spiritual and intellectual stimulus of a receptive community of women, which by the time of his death was a flourishing Benedictine house of the Beuronese Congregation, living a full liturgical life, as still today.

Here Casel was to remain, praying, celebrating, preaching, editing, writing, never going to conferences, even those devoted to his own thought. And here, in an astonishingly appropriate way, he was to die. On Holy Saturday 1948, he suffered a stroke after singing the Lumen Christi. He died in the early hours of Easter Sunday, 28 March. He was 61. It is a custom among monasteries to exchange notices of brethren who have died, including usually brief biographical details. That devoted to the passing of Odo Casel was a lyrical classic of the genre:

"Having just greeted the light of Christ in a clear voice and while preparing to celebrate the paschal praeconium, our beloved Father in Christ, liturgist of the sacred mystery and mystagogue, Odo Casel, monk of Maria Laach, having accomplished his holocaust and passing over with the Lord during the holy night, entered upon the beatific vision, being himself consummated in perfection by the mysteries of Easter which he had given to initiates. Thanks be to God."

Turbulent times for the pen and the sword

Casel's claim on our attention lies in his thoughts and writings, and above all in his vision of the "Christian thing" and, more specifically, of Christian worship. But before we turn to this, a word must be said about the wider context of his life and thought. This - to repeat - was Germany, the Germany that had lost a world war, an emperor and an empire, was passing through the humiliations of the Weimar Republic and then was to be swept up into the ultimately destructive fantasy-world of National Socialism.

In one sense, Casel lived apart from all this. He was certainly not a political animal; he kept "the even tenor" of his scholarly, monastic ways. Yet he was profoundly aware of the contemporary problematic. He was also aware of so much that was deficient in contemporary Catholicism: the inadequacies of neo-scholasticism, the excessively juridical view of Church and liturgy, and the individualism of so much piety. And his own work may be regarded as parallel to many of the attempts of the time to find a way forward in the world and in the Church.

One thinks of phenomenology and its "turn to the object", of the dialectical theology of Karl Barth reaffirming divine transcendence, of the desire for community and communion with nature in the Youth Movement, and more particularly of the tenderly bourgeoning patristic and liturgical movements within Catholicism and the concomitantly growing sense of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ. In 1922, Romano Guardini wrote his famous words: "A religious process of incalculable importance has begun - the Church is coming to life in souls."

Casel - like his own monastery of Maria Laach - has a distinctive place within this spectrum, one founded on Scripture, the Fathers and the Liturgy, on a deep appreciation for the ancient world and man's natural religiosity, for the objective and traditional and transcendent. For him, as he outlined in the arresting first chapter of his Das Christliche Kultmysterium [The Mystery of Christian Worship, 1st ed. 1932], it was the "Mystery" that needed to come to life in souls. Now was the providential moment, after the collapse of rationalist individualism, for a "turning to the Mystery". We can now turn ourselves to explore what he meant by this.

What did he say?

Mystery theology or the "doctrine/teaching of the Mystery" (Mysterientheologie, Mysterienlehre) are the names given to Casel's thought in German circles. "My first insight into the doctrine of the Mystery came to me in the course of a conventual Mass", Casel himself wrote. In sources and style, it may be categorized as "neo-patristic", a Catholic cousin to much of the theologizing of Orthodox émigrés of the same period, not to mention some equally adventurous Catholic contemporaries engaged in a similar ressourcement. Casel was decidedly not in the Scholastic tradition.

Rather he was a Benedictine monk, steeped body, mind and soul, in the Roman-Benedictine liturgy. It was out of this that his vision came. The "kernel" or content of this "theology" or "doctrine" was "the new appreciation (or restoration of the traditional appreciation) of the liturgical celebration as the concrete reality in which Christ's saving action in death and resurrection becomes present to us" (B. Neunheuser). More simply, one might call it a liturgy-centered vision of Christianity. ‘Ganzheitschau’ was one of Casel's favorite words: a view of the whole. And this is certainly what he bequeathed. What follows attempts to outline his thought under seven headings

Mystery: the core idea of Christianity

What is Christianity? What is its essence? This is the first question. Dom Odo, who was ever a philologist, began by turning to the word mystery (mysterion in Greek, mysterium in Latin). Hidden here, he saw, was the heart of Christianity. For the 18th century, Christianity might appear to be no more than a system of beliefs and a code of conduct; for the 19th century (as for many at the beginning of the 21st!) it might appear above all as a spirituality, as a way of relating to the Beyond.

For St Paul, however, and for the whole New Testament as well as for the authentic tradition of the Church, Christianity is the revelation of the Mystery. And the Mystery, in the predominantly Pauline sense, "means, first of all, a deed of God's, the working-out of an eternal divine plan through an act which proceeds from His eternity, is realized in time and the world, and returns once more to Him, its goal in eternity."

This Mystery can be expressed by the one word "Christ", meaning by it the Savior's person, together with His mystical body, "the Church". It is - initially - the Incarnation; it is - centrally - the sacred Pasch, the death and resurrection of the Lord; it is - consequently - the entry of the Church, the community of the redeemed, in the wake of the sacrificed and glorified Christ and by the power of His Spirit, into the presence of the Father.

"For Paul, Peter and John, the heart of faith is not the teachings of Christ, not the deeds of his ministry, but the acts by which he saves us". And our salvation, our liberation from sin and union with God, is brought about by participation in the saving acts of Christ. This, then, is Christianity "in its full and original meaning", the "gospel of God". Not a world-view with a religious backdrop, not a theological system or a moral law, "but the mysterium in the Pauline sense, that is God's revelation to mankind through theandric acts, full of life and power" and our saving participation in these.

Three-fold nature of Mystery

More amply, he explained, "mystery" denotes three things at once. It has a theological, a Christological and a sacramental-liturgical meaning, and these three can hardly be separated. First of all, the Mystery is God Himself, the thrice-holy, dwelling in inaccessible light and simultaneously mysteriously revealing Himself to the pure and humble. We can see ancient man's sense of this primal Mystery in his temples and pyramids, in his wisdom and worship, in the natural longing for union with the divine. To Israel, of course, God revealed Himself more fully, but this proved to be by way of preparation. And so we come to the second sense of Mystery, the Pauline and Christological. "Christ is the mysterium in person. He reveals the invisible God in the flesh". And His deeds are "mysteries" too.

"The deeds of His self-abasement, and above all His sacrificial death on the cross, are mysteries, because in them God reveals Himself in a way that goes beyond all human standards of measurement. Above all, though, His resurrection and exaltation are mysteries, because in them divine glory was revealed in the man Jesus, and this in a form that is hidden from the world and only open to believers".

This last is a point Casel insists on: mystery is by definition hidden as well as revealed; only faith can "see" it and only gnosis, Spirit-given knowledge, penetrate it; it is beyond the grasp of the "world"; it is given to the Church.

"The Apostles proclaimed the mysterium Christi to the Church, and the Church in turn hands it on to all generations. But just as the plan of salvation does not involve simply teaching but, above all, the salvific deed of Christ, so the Church leads mankind to salvation not merely through the word but also through holy actions or deeds".

And so we arrive at the third sense of mysterium, closely connected with the first two. "We find the person of Christ, His saving deeds and the working of His grace in the mysteries of worship". Mystery in this sense denotes "a sacred ritual action, in which a past redemptive deed is made present in the form of a specific rite; the worshipping community, by accomplishing this sacred rite, participates in the redemptive act and thus obtains salvation".

The Mystery and the mysteries

Two patristic quotations enter here. The first is from a sermon of St Leo's on the Ascension (Sermon 74:2): "what was visible in our Redeemer has passed over into the mysteries"; the second from St Ambrose (Apology for the Prophet David 58): "I find You in Your mysteries". In both cases, Casel understands "mysteries" not simply as those of the faith publicly proclaimed (though that too, of course, can be a liturgical event) but as the sacramental celebrations of the Church.

It is in these above all that the mystery of God in Christ is present. Therefore the liturgy itself deserves the appellation mystery, the mystery of worship (Kultmysterium) as Casel calls it. It is a mystery because in it "the divine saving act is present under the veil of symbols". It is the mystery of Christ present in a sacramental form, as Christ is the mystery of God present in the form of "flesh".

The essence of liturgy

Here we approach the heart of Casel's vision, his understanding of liturgy, his sense of its essence, his view of its place in the scheme of things. Liturgy is not ritual or pageantry nor, as some of Casel's contemporaries believed, merely a collection of rubrics governing the public worship of the Church. Nor, he might have said today, is it something we construct to express our group-psychology or something in the service of the "feel-good factor". It is the place and presence and power of the mystery of Christ. It is "the carrying out and realization of the new covenant's mystery of Christ in the whole Church through all the centuries, for her sanctification and glorification".

"God who revealed himself in the humanity of Jesus, continues to act after His glorification. Indeed, it is above all after this glorification that He acts through Christ the High Priest", and He acts "through the ordinary way of the economy of salvation", that is, the sacraments of the Church, thereby endowing liturgy with the force of the Mystery. This "mystery of worship" is "nothing other than the God-man continuing to act on earth. Hence this mystery, like that of Christ Himself, bears a twofold character: that of the divine majesty which is at work, and that of the veil of material and earthly symbols which simultaneously hide and disclose… The presence of the Lord in the divine mysteries occupies an intermediate position - a middle stage - between the earthly, historical life of Christ and his glorious life in heaven", between the Ascension and the Parousia.

The Church, the spouse and helpmate of Christ

None of this touches us simply as separate individuals. It is all for the Church and with the Church. The Church is at once the beneficiary of Christ's sacramental presence, and His helpmate. The presence of Christ in the sacramental mysteries is a "bridal gift" for the Church, and the sacraments, in turn, are a means for her to express her love for her Husband. Liturgy is nuptial. In the liturgy, the Church becomes the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ. She receives from Him, is conformed to her crucified, glorified, Spirit-filled Lord, and at the same time is enabled to collaborate with Him in the furtherance of man's salvation, con-celebrating the mystery of worship with Him.

Without the mystery of Christ's liturgical presence, especially in the Eucharist, "the Church would be a priest without a sacrifice, an altar without an offering, a wife separated from her husband, unconsecrated, unable to come to the Father". She would not be the Church, in other words. But at the same time, it is through the same mystery of worship that Christ is fully Christ, the One who saves and glorifies His people. No wonder, then, that Casel - who never reduced the life of the Church to liturgy - should call it, nonetheless, "the central and essentially necessary activity of the Christian religion".

The real presence of Christ

At this point, it becomes vital to look more deeply at what it is that gives liturgy its salvific authority and its place in the history of salvation. It is, said Casel, the presence in the liturgical celebration, in the sacramental form, of the saving deed of Christ. This might seem unexceptional, even platitudinous. It is nothing of the sort, and in the theological context of his times it was revolutionary. Here we touch on Casel's dearest and deepest insight. In liturgy, he believed, the saving deed of Christ was objectively re-presented as an efficacious reality, thus enabling believers to enter into salvific contact with it. For him, as the German theologian Theodore Filthaut explained over 50 years ago:

"The saving acts which belong to the historical past are objectively and really re-presented in the liturgical mysteries. It is not a question of a merely "intentional" re-actualization being produced by a celebration; the saving acts are truly posited anew in the present. And these saving acts - the incarnation, death and resurrection, to restrict ourselves to the most important - are the proper content and object of the sacraments; they form the interior reality of the mysteries of worship".

In the Mass, for example, it is not simply the Christ who once suffered and is now in glory (Christus passus) who is sacramentally present, but the actual passion of Christ (passio Christi). It was precisely with such "ontology", such "realism", Casel believed, that the Church had always celebrated the liturgy. Wholly inadequate, therefore, and spiritually impoverishing, was the then current theory of a merely "effective re-presentation". Christ's "mysteries", in this view, belong to the historical past. It is metaphysically impossible for them to be present in liturgical celebrations. What is brought us by the liturgy is their effects.

Here St Thomas' well known Collect for Corpus Christi comes to mind: "May we so venerate the mysteries of your Body and Blood, that we may constantly experience in us the fruit of your redemption". It is this - the fruit, the grace(s), and the saving effects of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice - that, in a variety of ways, the sacraments bring us. Casel, naturally, did not deny what was being positively asserted here. The sacraments do indeed bring us grace! What he denied was the negation, the refusal to allow the presence, not just of the graces, but also of the source of those graces. "By liturgical worship", wrote his disciple Dom Jean Hild, "and especially by the sacraments, Christ becomes present with his saving acts, and not simply by means of the graces that He once merited for us on Calvary", or in Aidan Nichol's words, "the sacramental sign…is the ritual face of the redemptive act of Christ in its plenary reality, and not simply a communication of grace", and therefore, as Sr Theresa F. Koernke has expressed it, "the Christian ... really encounters Christ in his saving activity in and through the liturgical activity of the Church".

The sacramental economy

In Casel's own words, the "main intention" of the Mystery-teaching was "to set out clearly once again the Church's mysteries, above all the Eucharist, but the other sacraments as well, each according to its measure and place, as the "sacrament of the redemption"; that is to say, to show them as the presence of the economy (oikonomia) in the Church; not to reduce the sacraments to mere "means of grace". As a witness to what he regarded as the deeper and more ancient view, Casel invoked the then Prayer over the Gifts of the 9th Sunday after Pentecost:

"Grant us, we beg You Lord, that we may frequent these mysteries in a worthy way, for every time we celebrate the commemoration of this sacrifice, the work of our redemption is accomplished (opus nostrae redemptionis exercetur)".

What this prayer calls "the work of our redemption", Casel called "the saving Act (or Deed)", and the wave of controversy that this view aroused only led him to repeat and refine his conviction, never to renounce it. At the base of it lay an argument not unlike that by which the Fathers had defended the divinity of the Son and the Spirit: if we are deified by these Persons, these Persons must be divine.

So wrote Casel, "this real representation of the saving deed cannot not be, because the saving acts of Christ are so necessary to the Christian that he cannot be a true Christian if he doesn't live them after Him and with Him. It is not the teaching of Christ which makes the Christian. It is not even the simple application of his grace. It is total identification with the person of Christ obtained by re-living His life".

And it is precisely this "total identification", this communion with the life, death and resurrection of the Lord that the liturgy makes possible.

Presence-in-Mystery

At this point many, like Mary at the Annunciation, were inclined to ask, "how can this be?" or more brutally, "this sounds lovely, but what does it mean?" There was a fear that Casel was maintaining a literal reproduction in the liturgy of historical events, such as the birth and epiphany, baptism and transfiguration, death and resurrection, which, however much they might be an enduring part of the glorified Christ, did belong, as events, to the irretrievable past. Casel and his disciples, however, insisted they were not proposing any such reproduction or repetition of past events. Nor, on the other hand, did they think adequate the view that in the liturgy the heavenly Christ merely distributes the graces of his past meritorious acts. Rather, there is in every one of the saving deeds of the Lord a substantial element transcending time and space and capable of commemoration and re-presentation in a sacramental way (in sacramento, in mysterio). It is a question of a presence in mystery (Mysterien-gegenwart).

What happened in the past under the veil of historical events happens now under the veil of sacramental signs. Celebrations are indeed time-and-space bound, but they bring into time and space something that essentially transcends them. Once again Casel would have asked, if this is not the case, how can we have that necessary contact with the deeds of Christ, how can we - the Church - contact the "mysteries of his flesh", "be brought by his passion and death to the glory of his resurrection"?

The unity in Liturgy

Granting all this - the what and the how - we are brought back to the practical question of where? Or, in other words, does all liturgy involve this sacramental presence of the saving deeds? Are there not distinctions to be drawn between the Eucharist and the other sacraments, between sacraments and sacramentals? Here too Casel, without cavalierly ignoring the necessary differentiations, saw things as a whole.

The mystery of worship is found in the Eucharist supremely, in the other six sacraments, and also in such sacramentals as Christian burial, monastic profession and the consecration of churches, the Divine Office, the feasts and seasons of the liturgical year, especially Easter, and liturgies of the word. All of these, in their different ways, bring us the presence of the Mystery and enable us to enter into it. Casel did some lastingly valuable soundings in several specific liturgical areas.

Here we can only summarize his teaching on the sacraments of initiation. As regards baptism, we have the clear statement of St Paul: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united to the likeness of his death, we shall be also to that of his resurrection" (Rom 6:3-5).

Baptism is the bridal bath in which the Church is washed and there, for the first time, "the Christian meets the mystery of worship". As he enters the water, he meets the dynamic presence of the Paschal Mystery in its sacramental "likeness" and is transformed by it. It is not enough to talk here of the forgiveness of sins and filial adoption; these effects arise from a prior assimilation to Christ.

In confirmation the Bride receives her anointing, and participation in the death and resurrection of the Lord is perfected. Just as the Lord became a life-giving Spirit through his Pasch, so believers are conformed, through the chrism, to the Spirit-filled Christ. "Peter, Paul and John regard the possession of the Spirit as the sign of the Christian".

The one baptized and confirmed, then, "is no longer a mere man, but is transformed into a deified man, newly generated by God into a child of God…Because he is a member of Christ, the High Priest, he is himself a Christ, that is an anointed man and a priest, who is allowed to offer God the Father a sacrifice which is uniquely acceptable and accepted through Christ".

The mystical meaning of ‘participation’

The sacrifice of Christ is made sacramentally present in the Mass, through the ministry of the ordained, and so it is possible for the "initiated" to offer this one true sacrifice and themselves with it. The Church "shares Christ's sacrifice, in a feminine, receptive way, though not less actively for that. She stands under the cross, offers her Bridegroom and herself with Him", and in Holy Communion becomes, ever more, what she receives, is ever more identified with the Lord. "These three mysteries, Casel says, are therefore the most important and the most necessary for the life of the Church and for each individual Christian".

Always it is a matter of participation in the mystery of Christ made sacramentally present for the life of the world. When contemporary liturgists speak, for example, of the Liturgy of the Hours as the Church's participation in the salvific praise and intercession of Christ, or of the liturgical year as a mystagogical induction into the one mystery of Christ annually unfolded, they are, wittingly or not, echoing Odo Casel.

The goal of liturgy

Finally, then, we are reminded again and again of the goal of liturgy. Through the liturgical "whole", through the celebration of its sacraments and sacramentals, the Church becomes what she is, the Body and Bride of Christ, and the individual Christian is conformed, by the Holy Spirit, to the crucified and risen One whom he meets in the liturgy. Out of this objective conformation flows a most demanding subjective imperative. "If the soul wishes to assimilate the content of worship, she must, by her subjective action, co-operate as closely as possible with the objective grace of the liturgy" (A. Gozier), conscious all the time that it is God's sanctifying action which is paramount. Dom Odo understood "participation" as a summons to holiness. In his homilies and conferences, he repeatedly presents the high ideal of a simultaneously crucified, risen and pneumatic life - something he saw the monk and nun called to in an ex professo way.

The Mystery naturally tends to mysticism. The mystery of Christian worship is the surest source and location of life lived in the mystery. By means of it, the mysteries of Christ's humanity become the mysteries of our own. By means of it, the Holy Spirit imparts to believers the true gnosis, an experiential knowledge of the mystery of Christ, taking them beyond the merely rational and into a life of God-like agape. The "end" of Casel's Mystery Theology points in the same direction as the end of the Rule of St Benedict by which he lived: to "the heights of wisdom [ie. gnosis] and virtue [ie. agape]".

How right was Casel?

And so to the final questions, how right was Casel? How have theologians and the Church responded to him? From as early as 1926, in fact, Casel's writings provoked controversy. In November 1947, a few months before his death, Pius XII's great liturgical encyclical Mediator Dei was published. Casel saw in it essentially a corroboration of his life's work. He was, at the deepest level, surely right. Others were quick to point out that one passage at least (n.176, on the Church's year) seemed to be an explicit critique of his and Maria Laach's approach. What did become clear was that clarifications were needed.

Casel was neither a philosopher nor a systematic thinker. His biblical and patristic exegesis was far from commanding universal assent, nor his appeal to the Mystery Religions. And yet the quotations with which this article began (Ratzinger, Gy, Nichols) are statements of sober fact, and the truth is that his central insights, after much sifting by theologians and liturgists throughout the 1950s and 1960s, have prevailed, even mightily - even when his authorship of them has been forgotten. Among theologians, for example, Edward Schillebeeckx in his classic Christ the Sacrament (1963) convincingly incorporated into sacramental theology Casel's understanding of the mysterious presence of the redemptive act (ch.2, s2), while the growing understanding of liturgy as the sacramental celebration of the Paschal Mystery has become the common teaching. Here I can only briefly point to the judgment of the Magisterium.

The legacy of Casel and Vatican II

In 1964, shortly after the promulgation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Louis Bouyer could write that "the heart of the teaching on the liturgy in the conciliar Constitution is also the heart of Dom Casel's teaching". This would hold particularly for articles 5 to 13, for the focus on the Paschal Mystery (art 5 and frequently elsewhere), the understanding of the apostolic mission in art.6, the teaching on the various modes of Christ's presence in the liturgy in art.7, the resounding affirmation in art.10 that the "liturgy is simultaneously the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed and the source from which all her power flows".

Most symbolic perhaps is the five-fold use by the Council of the Prayer over the Gifts mentioned above and its vital phrase, opus nostrae redemptionis exercetur. Significantly, too, this prayer now features twice in the post-conciliar Missal. Thus has the teaching authority of the Church, without descending to controversies, incorporated the inner truth of Casel's vision.

The legacy of Casel and the new Catechism

A further step, in this writer's view, has been taken by the theology of the liturgy opening Part II of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Even the titles suggest this: "The Celebration of the Christian Mystery", "The Sacramental Economy", "The Paschal Mystery in the Age of the Church", or a sentence such as:

"the gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the 'dispensation of the mystery' - the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, until he comes” (n.1076).

Or, most remarkably, the profound and beautiful reflections of n.1085: "In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present…His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is - all that he did and suffered for all men - participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything towards life". Such a vision is owed to no one so much as Odo Casel.

A vision for the future

As has been well said, Casel's essential bequest is an ontology of the liturgy. In many ways, his death in 1948 marked a turning-point in the history of the 20th century liturgical movement. Practical 'pastoral' concerns came to dominate: questions of language, of active participation, of the re-drafting of rites, and though Casel's prophetic (and patristic) vision of liturgy has found a place in theology and doctrine, its full potential as mystagogy, as guide to celebration, surely remains to be realized.

As the American Benedictine Aidan Kavanagh has well expressed it, "In true celebration of the Mystery there is nothing that is anthropocentric, rationalistic, subjective, or sentimental; rather, it finds expression in a rigorous theocentrism, objective contemplation, and a splendid transcendentalism".


For all that, now, may sound a little dated in his writings, for all the imperfections, for a certain "impracticality" even, a "turning" or returning to Odo Casel can aid in the ever-necessary and certainly liturgically necessary "turn" to the Mystery. No doubt, he never will be a household name, but he was one of the humble glories of 20th century Catholicism and remains a prophet and mystagogue as the new millennium begins, novo milliennio ineunt.

DOM ILDEFONS HERWEGEN

my source: Dom Oldefons, An I Introduction:
In a previous post I argued that Abbot Ildefons Herwegen’s introduction to Guardini’s famous book on the liturgy is an example of the pre-WWII Liturgical Movement reacting to liberal individualism. I argued that it–unlike the book that it introduces–goes too far in the opposite direction. I have now made a translation of Herwegen’s introduction:

Introduction to Romano Guardini’s Spirit of the Liturgy (1918)

In the Acts of the Apostles the praying Church stands at the threshold. She begs for the sending of the Holy Spirit; she strengthens herself in charismatic prayer for martyrdom; she watches praying at the prison of St. Peter; she surrounds the mysterious breaking of the bread with unceasing prayers, and thus forms her liturgy. At the dawn of of Christianity the Church appears as orans. In her the petition of the disciples is answered: Lord, teach us to pray. Like a little seed the Our Father grows into a mighty tree. The prayer of Christ has blossomed into the eternal prayer of the Church. Her liturgy is the breath of the praying Christ, the glorified high priest. This prayer of Christ – holy in its divinity, noble in its humanity— continues on earth a solis ortu usque ad occasum in the unceasing prayer of the Church.

The Church is the society of the true worshipers of God. Her prayer is never a mere cry for help forced by necessity. Even her petitions and lamentations are ennobled and restrained: trembling with loving adoration, illumined with faith in Christ’s victory, with selfless, childlike joy in the greatness and beatitude of the Father. The Church stands tranquil and confident in the midst of the turbulent world. What gives her the confidence to stand? Her prayer.

It is not assemblies, speeches, demonstrations, nor the favor of states and peoples, nor protective laws and subsidies that make the Church so strong. And while there can never be enough done in preaching, in the confessionals, in parish missions, in catechesis, and in works of mercy; yet all such things are merely the external achievements that flow from an internal power. It would be perverse indeed to be concerned principally for such achievements whilst neglecting the concern for the purity, intensity, and growth of the internal source. Wherever the Church truly, vitally prays there supernatural holiness springs up on all sides, there active peace, human understanding, and true love of neighbor blossom.

Our prayer decides the struggle of our life. He who prays well begins to comprehend the whole of life in its breadth and depth; he finds the balance between the infinite and the finite. To pray is to anchor our created wills in the will of God. The prayer of Christians finds already in the activity of prayer itself an infinite fulfillment through being united to the omnipotent will of God.

Prayer is the word of the searching human soul.

Here human ways end, and the human will is touched by the will of God, and is filled with awe and terror along with redeeming, quieting consolation and liberating strength.

Only in adoration do we find healing and salvation.

The prayer of the Church establishes a firm connection to the eternal. Eternal truth seizes us here, makes us real, makes us worthy for eternal being and life, worthy to see the eternal good and delight in it.

Participation in the adoring love of the Church, the bride of Christ, gives purity and strength.

We live in a time which has left rationalism behind, a time which is striving toward mysticism; today, more than in the recent past, people are inspired by the longing to approach God. Even the feverish obsession with work, which also marks our time, and which offers itself as a substitute for religion, is not able to strangle the mystical longings of the soul. This cry is too powerful, too universal: to God! But where is the path to Him?

The individual raised by the Renaissance and by liberalism has exhausted itself. It recognizes that it needs a connection to an entirely objective institution in order to mature into personality. It demands community [Gemeinschaft].

The age of socialism does have communities, but only such as form a collection of atoms, of individuals. But our desire is for organic, for vital community.

The Church is such an organic community in the highest sense. She unites persons more intimately than any other community; she gives them one spirit, indeed in a sense one body—corpus Christi mysticum. In this body every part is connected to every other and to the head by an intimate, life giving relation. The Church is the “communion of saints;” the saints struggling toward God amidst the trials and tribulations of this valley of tears, and those transfigured, sanctified members of Christ, who triumph in His glory.

An organic community that is is ordered to God must have public worship. The liturgy of the Church is public, but not only in the ancient sense of belonging; the liturgy does not only regard the whole, it also elevates the prayer of each individual. Thus the prayer of each individual soul becomes itself a liturgical. Christ relates to the Church in a way parallel to the way in which He relates to the soul. But the liturgy places the prayer of the individual on an objective foundation, it orders it to a greater, super-personal telos, transcending the narrowness of the individual and its random circumstances. The whole of creation praises the creator in liturgy, and the individual soul mirrors the whole universe.

The reforms of Pope Pius X concentrated our attention with on the liturgy with a new urgency. The Sacrifice, blessing, and prayer of the Church as expressed in her liturgy has won ever more importance in the devotional life of German Catholics in recent years. In theory and in practice, in research and in life, we are trying to learn and foster the authentic liturgy.

The liturgy has been called “the great catechism of the laity.” (J. Brögger) That is what it was in previous centuries. If it is to become such a catechism of the laity again then “we must put much more emphasis in formation within the family, the schools, and in sermons, on teaching the true values and sentiments of the Catholic liturgy, unfolding their educative power, and showing how well they harmonize with what is most noble in the German spirit.” (L. Baur)

Our series Ecclesia Orans is attempting to support such attempts by explaining liturgical terms, actions, and texts, and thus fostering deeper liturgical understanding among the clergy, the teachers, and the educated laity. A series will not follow a strict plan, but will be a loosely connected group of monographs that treat historical, dogmatic, ascetical-mystical, philosophical, pedagogical, and aesthetic questions on the liturgy with a rigorous scholarly foundation, but in a style accessible to the general reading public.

The prayer of the Church is an expression of what is objective and communal, and thus it has developed for itself an external form. Our task is to describe and explain this form; to trace its origins and development. But since the external form is the expression of the internal spirit, we will pay particular attention to the spirit of the liturgy. Thus the scope of our series is very wide. It will treat not only liturgical topics in the strict sense, but also everything which contributes to a better understanding of its spirit—as for example the prayer and ascetic discipline of the patristic Church, the theology of the Church Fathers, the and the influence of monasticism on the development of the liturgy.

We will be pleased if out series can contribute something to liturgical scholarship, but our goal is to open up the treasures of the liturgy and make them fruitful for the Christian life.

In this, the first little volume of our series, Guardini shows how the liturgy, properly understood contains a deep psychological wisdom—even from a natural point of view it fosters a healthy life of the soul. He examines the difficulties that modern man has with the liturgy, and shows how these difficulties arise both in a faulty understanding of the liturgy and in modernity’s unbalanced and exaggerated emphasis on certain aspects of life to the detriment of others. He shows how intimately that which the liturgy is and that which it gives are connected with true harmony in the soul. Without intending it the ancient rituals provide heal precisely the wounds that mark the modern psyche and untie precisely the knots in which contemporary man has tied himself. The liturgy lifts us out of the present moment, above the arbitrariness of individual circumstance. The liturgy trains us to be reverent worshipers of God, pure adorers of the Father.

In this work the author concentrates not so much on the scholarly explanation of the liturgy as on the personal conditions for fruitful participation in the liturgy. He tries to prepare the ground, to dispose the soul to receive what the liturgy offers.

Guardini’s essays are a fitting introduction to our series, since he is able to understand those who come to the liturgy from without, for the first time. He describes the collision of two spiritual worlds, and how their dissonance can be overcome. He unearths connections between the liturgy and the interior life that had become forgotten and buried. Thus he prepares the natural conditions for the liturgical experience. His work is thus admirably suited to lay the broad foundation upon which we mean to build.


FRANCIS'S SECRET FRIEND IN CASERTA & LUNCH WITH THE POPE by a representative of the Evangelical Alliance

$
0
0
He is not Catholic, but Pentecostal, a part of those Christian communities which are in breathtaking expansion all over the world. Little by little the pope is meeting with their leaders. From rivals he wants to become friends, to the point of asking their forgiveness 

by Sandro Magister





ROME, July 23, 2014 – When the news got out, and was confirmed by Fr. Federico Lombardi, that Pope Francis intended to make a private visit to Caserta to meet with a friend, the pastor of a local Evangelical community, the city's bishop, Giovanni D'Alise, was thunderstruck. He hadn't been told a thing.

Moreover, the pope had planned his visit to Caserta for the same day as the feast of Saint Anne, the city's patron. Seeing themselves snubbed, some of the faithful threatened an uprising. It took a good week to convince the pope to change his schedule and divide the trip into two phases: the first a public one with the faithful of Caserta on Saturday, July 26, and the second in private with his Evangelical friend on the following Monday.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio had made arrangements to meet with this person months in advance. He mentioned this to a group of faithful from Caserta on January 15, after a general audience in Saint Peter's Square. And he spoke of it again on June 19, during a meeting in Rome with some Evangelical pastors, including the very same friend from Caserta, Giovanni Traettino, whom he had met in Buenos Aires in 2006 for a debate when he was the archbishop of the Argentine capital. 

The meeting with Pastor Traettino in Caserta is not, in fact, an isolated episode, but part of a broader effort that Pope Francis is making to win the favor of the worldwide leaders of those "Evangelical" and Pentecostal movements which especially in Latin America are the most fearsome competitor of the Catholic Church, from which they are snatching enormous masses of faithful.

"Evangelical" and Pentecostal Christians, who emerged a century ago from Protestant circles, have seen spectacular expansion. It is estimated that today they are almost one third of the approximately two billion Christians present in the world, and three fourths of Protestants. But they are also found in the Catholic Church. Last June 1 Pope Francis met in the Olympic stadium of Rome with 50,000 members of Renewal in the Spirit, the most important Catholic Charismatic group in Italy.

Three days later, on June 4, the pope had a long meeting at his residence of Santa Marta with some “Evangelical” leaders of the United States, including the famous televangelist Joel Osteen, California pastor Tim Timmons, and the president of the Evangelical Westmont College, Gayle D. Beebe.

On June 24, another meeting. This time with Texas televangelists James Robinson and Kenneth Copeland, with Bishop Anthony Palmer of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, with John and Carol Arnott of Toronto, and with other prominent leaders. There were also Geoff Tunnicliffe and Brian C. Stiller, respectively the secretary general and "ambassador" of the World Evangelical Alliance. The meeting lasted for three hours and continued through lunch, in the refectory of Santa Marta, where the pope, amid loud laughter, gave Pastor Robinson a high five (see photo).

Copeland and Osteen are proponents of "prosperity theology," according to which the more faith grows the more wealth grows. They themselves are very wealthy and live an extravagant lifestyle. But Francis spared them the sermon on poverty.

Instead - according to what “ambassador” Stiller reported - the pope assured them: "I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”

But he also told them that he had learned from his friendship with Pastor Traettino that the Catholic Church, with its imposing presence, acts too much as an obstacle to the growth and witness of these communities. And for this reason as well he thought of visiting the Pentecostal community in Caserta: "to offer an apology for the difficulty brought to their congregation."

During the pontificates of John Paul II and even more with Benedict XVI, the American “Evangelicals,” generally rather conservative, attenuated their traditional anti-papism and found points of encounter with the Catholic Church in the shared battle for the defense of religious freedom, life, and the family.

Pope Francis did not dwell on these issues in his conversations in recent weeks.

But last March the pope also met briefly, in the Rome, with the highly religious and “Evangelical” Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, with whom the United States Supreme Court sided in a landmark decision handed down at the end of June in the lawsuit they filed against the law backed by Barack Obama that required businesses to include coverage for contraception and abortion in their employee health care plans.

LUNCH WITH THE POPE

Posted by brianstiller on July 9, 2014




The inevitable question I’m asked when one knows I’ve been with the pope is, “And what is he like?” Here are some personal observations from a recent visit.
Impressions in the first moments so frame how we see an individual. This, my second meeting with Pope Francis, an almost three-hour conversation and lunch, allowed me to more carefully form impressions.
From the outset his charm set us all at ease. As we moved from the greeting hall to the conversation room, he stood by the door to turn out the lights. I noticed that gone were the papal slippers and instead shoes with dangling laces. At lunch, eaten in the cafeteria, it wasn’t the waiters who served us drinks; Pope Francis served Geoff Tunnicliffe, Secretary General of the WEA and me. His presence undermines pomp or circumstance. One has to remind themself that sitting across the lunch table, smiling through moments of joy is one of the most influential persons in the world. His celebrity is muted by his kindly ordinariness. His influence is corralled by his loving affection for people. His power leans towards the poor, those trampled underfoot.
Two dominant gifts showed. First his pastoral instincts and gifts are so evident. I asked, “When you were presented on the balcony in St Peter’s Square after your election, did you plan to ask those in the square to pray for you and then bow in silence?” He laughed. “No,” he said, “in that moment I sensed the Spirit leading me to do that.” So I asked, “When you did so, how did you feel?” He looked at me and smiled, “I was so at peace.”
We talked about Christians marginalized, pressed under the weight of government power or the majority presence of other faiths. He listened and then told a remarkable story. In his years in and out of Rome, he became friends with an Italian pastor. In time he came to learn that the church and pastor felt the power and presence of the Catholic Church, with its weighty presence, obstructing their desire to grow and be a witness. So he decided to visit the church and offer an apology for the difficulty brought to their congregation.
Offsetting his loving and endearing pastoral gift is the prophetic: not in foretelling the future but speaking forth the word of God.
Our lunch was just days after he had announced a shocking judgment in Calabria, south Italy, condemning the mafia for their “adoration of evil,” declaring all mobsters effectively excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Of earthquake proportion, this declaration will surely rattle communities where the Catholic Church and mobsters have for centuries lived along side each other. They are finding that Francis is more than just a cordial, pastoral priest from South America.
In the coming days we will hear of his determination to bring the administration of the Vatican under control, replacing leadership, cleaning up the Vatican Bank and speaking to the unspeakable matter of sexual abuse. His prophetic vision sees through haze and hears past chants, cutting open hypocrisy of religious self-interest.
I know some will wonder if we lack discernment, dining as we did with the head of a church many see as heretical. As an Evangelical, I’m clear in the importance of the Reformation and the role our community plays in announcing the Good News. I celebrate our understanding of the Scriptures as our only and final authority, the priesthood of every believer, the life-giving moment of rebirth and freedom for churches and ministries to spring up under the inspiration of the Spirit. No one is interested in rewinding the clock. Also to construct a united church isn’t doable and neither is it in our interest. Such plans do not lead us to fulfill Jesus’ prayer in John 17 that we be one in Christ.
My counter argument to those who might dismiss friendship with the pope is this. For Evangelicals and Protestants, of all shapes and sizes, the state and condition of the Roman Catholic Church matters. Of the over 2 billion Christians, one-half are linked to the Vatican. About 600 million are Evangelicals and another 550 million members of the World Council of Churches, (which includes the Orthodox Churches). As a world body, it is our calling to have contact with other major Christian communities and faiths. Conferencing with Rome no more compromises our doctrinal commitments than it would by meeting with the heads of other religions. We do that as a natural and important role of our calling. In places where Evangelicals are marginalized, having this official connection allows us to raise issues and ask for responses we would never otherwise get.
In a worldwide community of faith, the work and role of each Christian community matters. Given that 50 percent of those who call themselves Christian affiliate with Rome, when its spiritual and ethical authority is diminished it affects the entire world. When Rome loses her way, when corruption characterizes her financial dealings, when sexual scandals rob her of moral influence, when she fades from view in strongly declaring the nature of faith we all lose.
It’s fair to ask what kind of Catholic Church we as Evangelicals want to see. At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question and comment was, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community.  There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.” (Of course Evangelicals do evangelize Catholics and Catholics do the same to us. However, that discussion we will raise another day.)
We spoke about how in our diversity we might find unity and strength. Borrowing from Swiss Protestant theologian Oscar Cullman, we reflected how “reconciled diversity” allows us to stand within our own understandings of how Christ effects salvation. And then we press on to deal with global issues like religious freedom and justice and other matters, which affect our wellbeing.
We are in the middle of a major religious shakeup worldwide. The Middle East is on the edge of what we know not. Islam is on the rise. The Gospel witness permeates much of the global south. So what of the future?
A vibrant pope, spiritually vital, tough in ethical leadership and competent in overseeing his world communion is critical. What he says and does has a profound affect on us all.
Evangelicals need not hide behind fear of engagement.  Working on human suffering and matters of injustice with Christians who have a different tradition and read the biblical text differently does not violate who we are or what we believe
Working on the world stage, it is evident there is respect for our distinctive evangelical message and regard for our responsibility and calling to represent our Christian community. International cooperation among Christians is built on that respect.

Brian C Stiller
Global Ambassador
World Evangelical Alliance
July 2014


JULY 24th FEAST OF SAINT CHARBEL OF LEBANON, A MONASTIC SAINT

$
0
0


On May 8, 1828 in a mountain village of Biqa-Kafra, Lebanon, Charbel was born to a poor Maronite Family. From childhood his life revealed a calling to "bear fruit as a noble Cedar of Lebanon."

Charbel "grew in age and wisdom before God and men." At 23 years old he entered the monastery of Our Lady of Lebanon (north of Byblos) where he became a novice. After two years of novitiate, in 1853, he was sent to St. Maron monastery where he pronounced the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

Charbel was then transferred to the monastery of Kiffan where he studied philosophy and theology. His ordination to the priesthood took place in 1853, after which he was sent back to St. Maron monastery. His teacher provided him a good education and nurtured within him a deep love for monastic life.

During his 16 years at St. Maron monastery, Charbel performed his priestly ministry and his monastic duties in an edifying way. He totally dedicated himself to Christ with undivided heart and desired to live in silence before the Nameless One.

In 1875 Charbel was granted permission to live as a hermit on the hill nearby the monastery at St. Peter and Paul hermitage. His 23 years of solitary life were lived in a spirit of total abandonment to God.

Charbel's companies in hermitage were the Son of God, as encountered in the Scriptures and in the Eucharist, and the Blessed Mother. The Eucharist became the center of his life. He consumed the Bread of Life and was consumed by it. Though his hermit did not have a place in the world, the world had a great place in his heart. Through prayer and penance he offered himself as a sacrifice so that the world would return to God.

It is in this light that one sees the importance of the following Eucharistic prayer in his life:

"Father of Truth, behold Your Son a sacrificed
pleasing to You, accept the offering of Him who died for me…"

On December 16, 1898 while reciting the "Father of Truth" prayer at the Holy Liturgy Charbel suffered a stoke. He died on Christmas Eve at the age of 70. Through faith this hermit received the Word of God and through love he continued the Mystery of Incarnation.

To the Grave

Father Charbel spent the night before Christmas, 1898 in church, following his usual custom of twenty-three years, ever since he became a hermit at the hermitage of Saints Peter and Paul on the mountain of Annays. He did not waver from this praiseworthy custom. But that last night, he was lying down, neither awake, nor praying, nor meditating; he was asleep, sleeping the sleep of death. His soul, however, was with God, quite awake, in the eternal awakening. This was the last night Father Charbel would spend in the church of Saints Peter and Paul. Contrary to his custom and for the first time, Father Charbel was lying on the floor, over the mat of hair, with his face exposed.

Please note that people never saw his face when he was alive. He always kept his head down in church, at work or when walking, always looking to the ground. He would lift his eyes only to heaven. When in church, he always faced the altar with his eyes fixed on the tabernacle. However, when he died and was Lying face upward, his eyes were closed, still not looking at anyone, exactly as in his lifetime. Holding vigil at the body of the Servant of God in church, were his companions of the hermitage, Father Macarius Mishmshany, and Brother Francis of Artaba, along with a group of monks from the monastery of St. Maron. As soon as they learned of the passing of Father Charbel they rushed to the hermitage to kiss his hands and to be blessed by touching his body while bidding him farewell. Many spent most of the night kneeling near him, praying.

The snow was coming down heavily, accumulating on the hermitage and on the neighboring mountains and valleys. It was extremely cold and windy, to a degree that those keeping vigil around the saintly remains were trembling from the severity of the cold. And no wonder. The altitude of the hermitage is one thousand and four hundred meters above sea level, on a high summit exposed to the wind.

Those keeping vigil were asking one another, "If we are suffering so much for only one night in this severe winter, how was Father Charbel able to live twenty-three years here spending every night of his life, kneeling on bamboo, in pain from midnight until the time of his Mass at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, fasting and immobile as the stone statue erected on the floor before the altar. Truly, this hermit was a saint. He endured fatigue, hunger, poverty and cold with the courage of a martyr. Every minute of his life was martyrdom, without complaint. No doubt he is now finding the reward of his marvelous martyrdom, with God."

Who could dare venture out that night, from the hermitage, from the monastery, or from the neighboring villages? Heavy snow had blocked all roads with an accumulation of three to six feet in some places. The monks were wondering if tomorrow they would be able to transfer the body of Father Charbel to the cemetery of the monastery in the extremely severe weather and with so much snow. How could they notify the people of the death of the saint under these circumstances? The neighbors would be very disappointed and sorry, not only because of the death of Father Charbel but also because they would be unable to bid him a last farewell and be blessed by him before he was buried.

Thus were the monks thinking. But the news of his passing quickly reached all neighboring villages like lightning. In those days, there were no telephones and no automobiles.

The conversation of the villagers that night was about Father Charbel and his holiness. Each recalled what he knew of his outstanding virtue, his poverty, humility, angelic purity, his amazing obedience, his continuous prayer and hard work, his observance of the monastic rules, his meekness and especially his perpetual silence, that prudent and holy silence.

Also, people were remembering his continuous communication with God, his love of the Blessed Sacrament, his devotion to the Virgin Mary, his compassion to the poor and the sick and his miracles. The stories would end with these words: "We are happy for him. He is a saint who went straight to heaven."

It seemed as if the angels themselves, who had announced to the shepherds of Bethlehem the nativity of the Savior of the world, now proclaimed that heaven had gained a newborn, in the person of Father Charbel a ripe fruit of the nativity of our divine Savior, Who himself was born humbly in a manger in Bethlehem.

That night everyone who knew of the passing of Father Charbel was wondering, "Will the snow stop tomorrow so we can visit Father Charbel for the last time, participate in his funeral, and bid him goodbye?"

On the morning of Christmas, 1898, the monks at the monastery and the people of the villages nearby, awakened early and saw the sky cloudy and dark and the ground, from the mountains to the valleys, covered with bright white snow with the trees shimmering like crystal chandeliers. No voice could be heard, only the howling of the wind. The cold was extreme, the roads were blocked. There were indications that more snow was on the way. They didn't think they could make it to the hermitage for the transfer of the body of St. Charbel to St. Maroon’s monastery. They believed that those at the hermitage would have to bury Father Charbel in the church of the hermitage. Nevertheless, young men from Annaya and its neighborhood wore their winter clothes and their heavy boots. They wrapped some covering around their heads, so that only their eyes were visible. Each carried a shovel to clear the road from the snow and to lean on it as a support while making their way. With courage, they faced the mounds of snow, so they could see their "saint," and have the honor of carrying his body on their shoulders down to the monastery and then to the grave.

At 8:00 A.M., a small group of these young men had gathered and joined the monks who were kneeling near the body of Father Charbel in church. Sorrowfully, together they prayed, their eyes fixed on Father Charbel who radiated the image of God in the most perfect way possible to man through the grace of God and because of his own voluntary efforts. Each one respect fully said, "He is a saint! Lucky him! God took him today to give him rest from his labors and to grant him reward of his virtues."

At 9:00 A.M., they brought a casket made of three wooden boards nailed to a slab extending from both ends, so it could be carried on the shoulders ~ of the pallbearers. On it they put a mat of hair. Then the hermit, Father I' Marcarius Mishmshany, the monks, and the brothers who had come from the monastery when Father Charbel died, carried the body and placed it in the casket. Father Marcarius, with tears in his eyes, and the monks, the brothers, and the young men carried it on their shoulders and began the descent from the hermitage to the monastery. The road was rugged. The strong men had shoveled some of the snow but more was falling, threatening to block the road again. The pallbearers were afraid they would drop the casket and the body because it was very difficult to walk the path leading to the hermitage. However, Father Macarius, the hermit, said to them: "Rely on God, do not be afraid; Father Charbel will make it easy for us."

They had hardly left the door of the church when the rain, the snow and the wind stopped all at once. Little by little the clouds began to clear. The pallbearers had no trouble at all. In fact, carrying the body to the hermit age was easy. They exclaimed: "Miracle! This is one of Father Charbel miracles."

George Emmanuel Abi-Saseen of Mishmash, a resident of Annaya, and one of the bearers, testified in the 17th Session, which took place on Oct. 13, 1926. After swearing to tell the truth and kneeling in the church with his right hand on the Holy Gospel, he said: "Father Charbel died on the eve of Christmas; the snow was heavy. We transferred him to the monastery on Christmas day. Before we moved him, the snow was falling rapidly and the clouds were very dark. When we carried him, the clouds disappeared, and the weather cleared."

Brother Peter of Mishmash, of the Lebanese order, a servant at the hermitage during the life of Father Charbel, testified that he was present at the death and at the funeral (Page 38 of the Investigation). "On the day of the funeral, it was raining and snowing."

How great is the Lord and how great is His mercy and love for those who fear Him. He send His angel before everyone of these "lest they das their foot against a stone" (Ps. 91:12).

He is the One who calmed the rough area and walked upon it. He is the One who gave orders to the wind: "Be calm," and it became calm. He gave orders to the wind at the mountain of Annaya and commanded the tempest and the snow to "Stop!" and they did. The clouds disappeared the weather cleared. It seems that God provided that the angels cooperated and see the face of His servant, Job; His beloved Charbel has endured patiently the suffering and the weakness of the body and It ridicule of those who mock the deeds of Christian heroism and the monastic and hermetic life, those who laugh at abstinence and mortification.

The small procession continued slowly, quietly, from the summit Mount Annaya to the monastery of St. Maron, located at the foot of the mountain. There was none of the grandeur that usually accompanies the funeral of clergymen. Each one of the pallbearers was saying: "Father Charbel had died. The angels took his soul to Abraham's bosom, and here we are taking his body to the grave, to the dirt. The soul of Father Charbel is whiter than this snow which covers the earth and dazzles our eyes."

The sun appeared over those high mountains and over the valleys, and the rays created some of the most beautiful, incredible spectacles. It seemed as if the sun itself wanted to bid farewell to Father Charbel. This was the same sun that burned his body in the summer as he worked in the garden and the same sun, which he sought so that he could suffer its rays to mortify his body. The sun seemed to be blessing God, our Maker, for this precious treasure placed here on earth to be an ornament for the sons of Adam and Eve. God will be praised and glorified by it in reparation for the fall of our first parents and for the transgression of sinners.

The cortege continued to move humbly over the snow to the monastery of St. Maron Annaya. There the fathers and brothers met it as it carried the holy body to the monastery and placed it on a platform. All flushed to kiss Father Charnel’s hands, asking for his intercession with God, saying, "This man knew how to live his life, for the glory of God and for his own salvation, whether at the house of his parents, in the Order, or at the hermitage. He ascended the ladder of holiness to heaven with giant steps like the angels who, in Revelation, ascended the ladder of Jacob. And now, he has reached the destination. How fortunate for him!"

People from the surrounding towns started to pour into the monastery, from Ehmej, from Mishmash, Toraza, Ouainey, Kfar Baal, Annaya, even Hojula, despite the fact that the inhabitants of the latter are Shiite Moslems. Nothing stopped them from coming, neither the distance nor the freezing cold, nor the high accumulation of snow. They said, "All fatigue and weariness are nothing to us who wish to bid farewell to Father Charbel and be blessed by kissing his hands before his burial. This is more valuable than the whole world, in our eyes."

As for the women in the neighborhood, they were sorry that they were unable to come to bid farewell to the saint. They wanted to be there very much. But women were forbidden to enter the monasteries of monks by virtue of the monastic law of cloister. Father Charbel himself, ever since he entered religious life, did not allow his eyes to see women, not even the face of his mother Brigita, nor his sister and his niece Rose (Wardeh).

At that time no one ever dreamed that in the future permission would be granted to the monastery of St. Maron Annaya to open the doors of its church and the cells of its monks to men and women and pilgrims coming from Lebanon and other countries of the world to see the body of Father Charbel, without its being subject to excommunication or other impediment. The miracle of April 22, 1950 was the incentive that caused the patriarch to remove the excommunication and allow all people, men and women, to temporarily enter the monastery for the benefit of the visiting sick and all the faithful.


The Burial

At 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, the customary funeral service for monks and hermits was held in the church of St. Maron Annaya. When the liturgical prayers of the funeral were completed, those participating believed that the life of Father Charbel and his memory on earth had ended, and that this was the last prayer Father Charbel would attend in the church of the monastery.

The funeral was very plain. No one person eulogized Father Charbel because each and everyone present was in conversation praising Charbel for his attitude, his piety and his sentiments. He lived quietly and wanted to die and be buried without notice. His attitude about living and dying was in conformity with his humble life. In this sense, the fact that it was snowing and was frigid cold helped to simplify the funeral ceremonies. Moreover, the superior of the monastery, Father Anthony Mishmshany, well known for his prudence, his sagacity and his appreciation of pious monks, was absent for several reasons, one of which was that the Maronite patriarch, John Peter Hage was ill, and had died. Therefore, the fathers at the monastery of St. Maron did not know what to do in the absence of the superior to honor Father Charbel at his death in a manner befitting his sublime virtues.

After the funeral, the monks were about to carry the body to the common grave of the monastery, when some of them came up with the idea of placing Father Charbel in a coffin for the purpose of keeping him separate from the bodies of the other deceased monks. However, the vicar responded: "We cannot go against the rules without consent. According to our by-laws, we cannot bury the monk in a coffin without the permission of our superior."

This is what the eye-witnesses, Brother Francis of Artaba, said in this respect (page 105 of Investigation): "On the glorious feast of Christmas, the funeral of Father Charbel took place. When the time came to bury him, some of the monks wanted him to be buried alone in a special place because the common grave was full of water. They felt he should not be buried there because he was a saint. Others, among them, the vicar to the superior, insisted that he be buried in the common grave. The vicar said 'If he is a saint, he will preserve himself.' And so Charbel was buried in the common grave."

Saba Bou-Moussey, another eye-witness, testified as to the flow of people who came to attend the rite of the funeral. "We went to the monastery to attend his funeral. We found crowds who had travelled from all areas around the monastery, Christians and Shiites-Moslems from Hojula and its neighboring villages, the expression of sadness and sorrow on their faces attesting to the greatness of this loss. Most of them had not been asked to come. They came of their own volition out of respect for and to receive a blessing from Father Charbel."

Brother Francis Artaba and Saba Bou-Moussey were not the only ones to testify. Many of those who were present at the death and burial also testified. We limited ourselves to two witnesses taken from the official investigation, for the simple reason of showing the source of our information (Father Mansour Awad wrote this account before Charbel was canonized in 1974).

After the funeral, the body of Father Charbel was carried on the shoulders of his brother monks to the common grave. All tongues were saying to him, "We congratulate you, O saint! Remember us before God. Pray us, so God may have mercy on us, and grand us a happy death."

The Burial of Saint Charbel In the Common Grave at St. Maron Annaya

The funeral ended and there was a complete silence, like an eloquent euIogy to the hermit who spent all his life in silence. The fathers of the monastery approached, carried the holy body and placed it at the entrance of the common grave of monks. The custom was that in the funeral of clerics, members of the clergy carry the priest's body first in procession and then to the grave. There, despite the freezing cold, a crowd of people gathered, among them women who had come to see the face of Father Charbel and to have a perfect view of the monk who had not allowed a full view of his face to ever be seen by women. It was the first and the last me they would see him, so they believed. None was able to foresee the future and know what would happen to this man of God and to his body. Who was capable of rolling away for these women, for their sons and daughters, the stone God used to seal the life of Father Charbel, the hermit, and place it at the door of death, the door of this grave, so they, the women, could see the face of Father Charbel before the day of Resurrection? The entrance of the grave was narrow and low to a degree where it was level with the ground, even below it. It was open!

Some clergy and lay people entered the grave to prepare a place for the body of Charbel. There they found no other body of the deceased monks preserved. They gathered the bones of the dead and placed them to one side.

What worried those who entered the grave to prepare a place for Charbel was the fact that the floor was full of mud and water leaking profusely from the ceiling and the eastern wall and especially through the door. The floor of the grave in the winter was like a little pond. When the condition of the grave was reported to the Vicar, in the absence of the Superior, he gave orders to have two planks placed on the floor of the grave over two large stones. When this was done, the body of Father Charbel was lowered into the grave and placed on two planks. His body was purposely positioned in such a way that it rested where the main altar was located.

In spirit he could join the monks in their prayers, meditations, Masses and visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Since it was impossible for him to be buried in the church, he was buried as close to it as possible.

All the monks and lay people who had accompanied the body of Father Charbel into the grave knelt down in the mud and kissed his hands and his feet. All were crying. The water was dripping on them from the ceiling and their feet were immersed in mud and water up to their ankles. After they came out of the grave, they put the stone over the entrance and covered it with dirt and snow. Then the final prayer was said by one of the fathers. They all were saying, "He is a saint! Lucky him." Others said, "It is a shame that he is buried in the mud! If the Father Superior were here, he would not have allowed Father Charbel to be buried but in a proper coffin."

Our description of the funeral of Father Charbel is not our own; we obtain it from the description of the grave as reported by the official investigation of 1926 on the burial of Father Charbel on December 25, 1898.

[The author is repeating details about the grave: again stating that there were no preserved bodies there, only bones, and mud and water. As a lawyer, Fr. Awad wanted to ask witnesses and consult records just to prove his facts. The body found uncorrupt later in the grave was indeed that of Father Charbel.]

After the burial, everybody returned home, telling their families about the ceremony, about their feelings, about how miserable the grave was and describing the mud and water, which filled it. They told their relatives, "No doubt the body of Father Charbel will decompose quickly because it is buried in a pond of mud and water. Father Charbel humiliated his body in life and now he seems to want to have it mortified after death, so it will be totally annihilated before God. He wanted his bones to be mixed with those of his brother monks, so he wouldn't have any privileges over.

A Prophecy in the Recording Of Father Charbel's Death

A week after the death of Father Charbel, the Superior of the monastery, Father Anthony Mishmshany, returned. He was a prudent, scholarly, and very intelligent and pious monk. When he learned of the death of Father Charbel, he said:

> This is a monk who knew how to best utilize his years when a monk, or a novice, or a student, and whenever he was stationed, at the monastery of Kfeefan, at the monastery of St. Maron Annaya, or at the hermitage. To him we can easily apply the saying of Pope Sixtus V: "Give me a monk who observes his spirit and the letter of his monastic rules and I will beatify him in his life! "The hermit monk observed the monastic and hermitic rules in spirit and in behavior all his life. <

He sanctified the Monastery of St. Maron when he lived there; he sanctified the grounds of the monastery by the sweat of his brow for eighteen years, plowing the field day after day, except on Sundays and holy days. His work was continuous prayer. He sanctified the hermitage by the monastic life, which surpasses ordinary human capability. He sanctified the vineyard of the hermitage also, by his hard labor without his ever tasting of the grapes it produced. His entire life was a chain of fruitful work of soul and body. He detached himself from everything in order to dedicate himself totally to God. All his actions were performed by virtue of supernatural grace.

This hermit will sanctify the cemetery of the monastery. From his grave, he will watch over the monastery, the hermitage, the neighborhood, the Order, the Maronite Church and Lebanon. I have a deep feeling that Charbel will be of great importance in his death. People outside the hermitage never felt his presence when he was alive as we did, because he was secluded in the monastery and on top of the mountain, living as a hermit. He was absolutely forgotten. But, in the grave, even if he is concealed, even after his body goes to the earth from which it was taken, his ashes will be holy and God will use him to perform great things. I am very sorry he died while I was away. I wished I was present to receive his blessings, which, to me, would have been like the blessings of Abraham to Isaac, like the blessing of Isaac to Jacob, like the blessing of Jacob to his children. If I were here when he died, I would have placed him in a closed coffin. To preserve his bones as sacred relics.

Then this wise Superior went straight to the grave, knelt down in the mud nearby where Father Charbel was buried and prayed for half an hour. The monks, knowing that he was there, came and knelt down behind him. Most of them thought he was praying for the repose of the soul of Father Charbel. However, he was praying to Father Charbel, asking his intercession on behalf of the monastery where he had lived, for the hermitage where he had spent twenty-three years glorifying God, for his companions residing in these two places, for the Order and for the Maronite Church, because he believed Charbel was a saint.

When the Father Superior stood up, the monks noticed the tears pouring down his face and onto his beard. Then he addressed his community saying, "With the death of Father Charbel, we have lost the lightning rod which was protecting the Order, the Maronite Church and Lebanon with his saintly life. We pray God will have mercy on us and grant that the mission of his servant, Charbel, will remain with us here on earth, just as God promised the house of David that their lamp would be extinguished on earth for the glory of his servant, David." I the Father Superior lifted up his eyes and prayed, "Lord, for the monastery, for the Order and for Lebanon, preserve the lamp of water, which you lighted for your servant, Charbel, in a miraculous way. Preserve this lamp shinning in his body, so that it will illuminate our way in this darkened world. Deliver us from the dangers that surround us. Help us to walk in the path of poverty, chastity and obedience, which we promised to follow in this life when we made our solemn vows. May we reach Heaven, the Promised Land, from this lamp of exile? Amen!"

Afterwards, the Superior entered the monastery and went to his room, closed the door and knelt down in prayer. He took the Record of the Dead, blessed himself with the sign of the cross, and recorded the death of Father Charbel in this way:

On the 24th day of the month of December 1898, Father Charbel, the hermit of Bkakafra, died after suffering a stroke and receiving the Sacraments of the dead. He was buried in the monastery's grave. He was sixty-eight years old. Father Anthony Mishmshany was the superior of the monastery. What God will perform after his death will be sufficient proof of his exemplary behavior in the observance of his vows, to a degree where we can say that his obedience was angelic, not human.

The Superior of the monastery, Fr. Anthony Mishmshany, knew Father Charbel very well. He knew the miracles God performed through Charbel during his life; he valued his monastic virtues and the sublimity of his monastic perfection in the hermitage. When this Father Superior recorded the death of Charbel, no doubt he was inspired to predict the future miracles we have since seen with our own eyes of which thousands of people throughout the world have heard. In fact, the phenomena taking place continuously around the tomb of Father Charbel, especially since April 22, 1960, is enough to tell us what this great Father Superior omitted to say regarding the life of Father Charbel. Blessed be God who uses His people to record what God has decreed for all eternity.

This prophecy of Father Anthony, which he had written in the Record of the Dead, was forgotten until the events of February 20, 1950 of which we will speak later. I was appointed Defender of the Faith by his Beatitude, the Maronite Patriarch, Anthony Peter Areeda, by a decree, dated March 19th, to open the tomb of Father Makhlouf and to inspect his body.


Light on the Body of Father Charbel in the Church and on the Tomb

The night following the death of Father Charbel, one of the monks went at midnight to the church to visit the Blessed Sacrament. The body of Father Charbel was in front of the altar. The monk saw a light bursting from the door of the tabernacle, circling the body of Father Charbel, easing up to the chandelier above the coffin and back to the tabernacle.

Since the first night following the burial of Charbel, the peasants who worked for the monastery and who lived across from it, also reported seeing a bright light emanating from the tomb, circling the monastery, sometimes shining on the windows of the cells, and sometimes on the windows of the church, then returning to the tomb. The rumor spread and many peasants, men and women, asserted that they saw the light every night for a month and a half. The news reached the superior of the monastery. He gave orders to the peasants to give him a signal when they saw the light, so he could go to their homes and see for himself.

This is exactly what took place. When some of the peasants saw the light around the tomb, they fired a hunting gun, so as to signal the superior that they saw the light. The superior then awakened and with the monks, went to the tomb where they indeed saw the light. Other times, he went with some of the fathers to one of the peasant's houses and from there, they would view the brilliance. The news spread in the neighboring villages and people from all over world come at night near the monastery to see the light. They saw it and told the monks and others that they had. Among those who came to the tomb were some Moslems (Shiits); they saw the phenomenon and were astounded! They also spread the news of this wonder to people of their faith and to others whom they knew.

One very dark night, Sheik Mahmoud Hamade, the administrator of the region, was searching for a criminal in that area. Some soldiers were with him. He and the soldiers saw also a light in the shape of a star shining above the east wall of the monastery.

They followed the light, as if guided by it, until they reached the monastery. Then the light disappeared. They knocked at the door and the administrator related to the superior what he and his companions had seen. They told him, "We thought the light was coming from the monastery." The superior was not surprised, since he and many others had seen the light. His belief in the holiness of Father Charbel increased, and he was certain that God would perform a miracle in the body of the hermit.

All of this is recorded in the official report on the notoriety of the holiness of Father Charbel Makhlouf and the miracles attributed to him, and from another report promoting the cause of beatification in 1926 - 1927. Eyewitnesses, among them monks, priests, brothers, lay people and many others whose honesty and integrity cannot be doubted confirmed these miracles. We compared the testimony of the witnesses and determined that they all agree on the truth of the apparition of the light above the tomb of the monks at St. Maron Annaya, from the time of the death of Father Charbel until the time he was removed from the tomb. We found a little disagreement in relating some secondary circumstances but not in substance. This is an indication that there was no collusion, nor personal gain among the witnesses, especially since they are not related to Father Charbel and they are all pious monks, or devout people of deep faith. More credibility is given to their depositions because they were canonically sworn to tell the truth as required by law in the Causes of Beatification. As we mentioned several times in this book, truth is vital to Catholic belief, with severe punishment inflicted in this world and in the next on those who perjure themselves.

Here we begin with the deposition by Father Francis Sibrini, a monk of the Lebanese Order, given after oath on May 12 and May 14, 1926. He had known Father Charbel in the hermitage for thirteen years; he also was present in the monastery of St. Maron Annaya when Father Charbel died; he had helped to carry the body from the hermitage to the monastery at his death and at the time of his burial. The news about the apparition of the light on the tomb had spread when he was in the monastery. In answer to a question, he said,

> The night before the burial, and after the transfer of the body from the hermitage to the church, Brother Elias Bmehrini visited the Blessed Sacrament, as was his habit, at midnight. After he had completed 15 decades of the rosary and the prayers of the visitation, he came running to me, trembling, saying: "I saw something extraordinary. I have never seen it before in my life. Come and see. It is a light flowing from the Tabernacle and circling the body of Father Charbel. Then it goes up to the chandelier above the coffin and from there back to the Tabernacle." I hurried with him to the church but I saw nothing. I began to argue with him, but he kept assuring me, indicating with his finger, the light, exactly like someone seeing a reality before his eyes. Still, I saw nothing. I thought he was hallucinating. <

Despite all of this, the same Father Sibrini said in his testimony:

> Since the first night after the burial of Father Charbel, the peasants who work for the monastery and who live in Annaya, which faces the tomb, came and told us that they had seen a brilliant light rising from the tomb and floating around the monastery, sometimes at the windows of the cells, sometimes around the windows of the church, and then back to the tomb. <

One night, the administrator of the area, a Moslem, was coming with some of his soldiers to capture a fugitive. One of the soldiers was a Christian, and secretary to the administrator; his name was Abdallah Mouawad. They came down from Qwayneh to capture the criminal, and, as they approached, they saw the flow of light from the tomb. They followed it until they neared the monastery. Then the light disappeared. They knocked at the door, and told the superior that they had seen from a distance a bright light shining like a star, moving ahead of them gradually, until it disappeared at the door of the monastery. Abdallah Mouawad said, "I believe it was coming from the town of Father Charbel, the hermit, who died recently." The conversation continued and the Moslem administrator said, "I will contact the Patriarch and publish our account in the newspaper." I have known bishops and patriarchs who have died and I have gone past the tombs of many, yet I've never seen anything like this spectacle which has dazzled our eyes!

One night, before retiring to bed, Father Anthony Mishmshany asked Brother Peter Mishmshany to get up and bring him some water from the fountain outside the monastery, near the tomb. He took a small pitcher and an oil lantern and went. He tarried for more than twenty minutes. The errand should not have taken more than five minutes. When he delayed further, Father Anthony Mishmshany and some of his companions opened the door and called to him. He answered from the vicinity of the tomb; "Father Charbel appeared to me in the form of a star. I couldn't go back because the lantern I had with me went out." They then took a lamp and went to fetch him. They found Brother Mishmshany sitting at the door of the tomb; his clothes dirty with mud and the pitcher still in his hand. He was shivering. He told them that while he was descending with the pitcher of water from the fountain, a blaze of fire in the shape of a multi-colored star, jumped out at him from the door of the tomb. He was stunned and fell to the ground (Report, page 25, 26).

Meelade, the widow of Tannous Shahadi, a Maronite and a peasant, who lived at Annaya, gave a short but precious testimony in this report. She said, "The apparition of the light at night over his tomb became frequent; I saw it three times. We reported this to the monks, but they did not believe us. When the Superior, Father Anthony Mishmshany came to our house, which faces the monastery from the south side, he saw the light for himself. Soon after, the corpse of Father Charbel was removed from the tomb."

Peter Sleiman Daher, a farmer at Annaya, on the property of the monastery, testified on page 28 of the report, as to why the monks took the body of Father Charbel out of the tomb, "Because they saw a light over his tomb which I myself, had seen twice. The body was removed from the tomb four months after the burial, as I recall."

The testimony of Brother Peter Mifouki, (Mifouki is the name of his town), is of special value, despite its brevity. "The body of Fr. Charbel was taken from the tomb, after a light had appeared over it. Many saw it, peasants and others. One dark and rainy night, when a Moslem administrator came with his soldiers, they saw a light over the tomb, enabling them to walk and see their way clearly. When they reached the monastery, the light disappeared. They called on the monks to open the door for them. I answered them, 'The door is locked. It is late and the monks are asleep. This is no time for hospitality.' They urged, 'Open. When you know who we are you will not argue with us.' We opened for them. They told us about the wondrous glow. As time went on, the lights became more frequent."

An inhabitant of Annaya, George Emmanuel Abi-Sasseen, originally from Mishmash, a Maronite, deeply religious and pious, said concerning Father Charbel,

> After his burial and since the first night, we used to see shining over the tomb from our homes, a distance of ten minutes from the south, a brilliant light, different from ordinary lights, resembling an electric light, appearing and disappearing. No matter how long we looked at it, it remained constant. Because of the light, we could now see the dome of the monastery and the east wall of the church, opposite the tomb, better than we could see it during the day. We would come to the monastery and tell the monks but they wouldn't believe us. We kept seeing this amazing spectacle every time we spent the evening in the house of our neighbor, which faced the tomb. All those who were spending the evening there saw it, too. Things remained that way until the tomb was opened and the body of Father Charbel removed. Then the light stopped appearing. From that time on, Father Charbel became famous and people started to visit his tomb to ask for his intercession.

No less important is the testimony of Joseph Elias Bo Sleiman, of Ehmej, a peasant at Annaya. He said,

> I knew Father Charbel for a long time; when he was a monk in the monastery, and when he lived in the hermitage, until the time of his death. I am not knowledgeable in these delicate matters about which you ask me. However, I will tell you simply and briefly what I know about him.

I was present at his burial in the common grave of the monastery. All those who attended his funeral said, "Lucky him! He is a saint, he went to heaven in his clothes." This is a common expression [in his clothes].

After burial, other peasants and I saw from our homes facing the monastery, a brilliant light over the tomb in the dark night. We saw it many times. But I, personally, saw it three times. However, when the body of Father Charbel was taken out of his tomb, the light stopped appearing. <

May we be allowed to relate the testimony of Father Peter Mishmshany? He lived at the monastery of St. Maron five years before the death of Father Charbel. He had visited Father Charbel during his last illness and participated in his funeral and burial. He said, "When a light was seen rising over the tomb, witnessed by many people, then the tomb was opened and the body was found to be sound, perfect, incorrupt."

We conclude these testimonies with the valuable, eye-witness testimony of Saba Bou-Moussey Quwayny:

> I don't recall exactly how long after the burial of Father Charbel, but it was well known that the peasants, whose homes were facing the tomb from the south, many times saw a brilliant light coming out of the tomb where Father Charbel was buried. From them, the news reached Ehmej and Hojoula (a Moslem town), and Artba. The inhabitants flocked to visit the tomb. They said that the light would appear ordinary at first, but would become larger and wider the higher it rose. It happened that the administrator of the region, Moslem Sheiek Mahmoud Hamade, came one night with some of his soldiers to look for some fugitives from the government. He thought they were hiding in the neighboring woods close to the monastery. They tied their horses in the vicinity of my house (at Mount Quwayney) and walked toward the monastery. When they arrived they saw a light, at first dim, but becoming brighter as they approached the door of the monastery, east of the church. At first they thought that the criminals were hiding there. They hurried to where the light shone but found no one. They knocked at the door of the monastery and when it was opened they searched but found no one other than the inhabitants there. They then told the Superior and the monks what they had seen. The Superior, Fr. Anthony Mishmshany, answered them. "For a long time, we have been hearing that people see a light where you say you saw it, at the tomb of the monastery where the body of Father Charbel is buried." Sheik Mahmoud answered him, "By God, the first chance I have, I shall tell His Beatitude, the Patriarch, of this matter." A few days later, the Superior received orders from His Beatitude to open the tomb, to inspect the body and to report on its condition".

We shall abstain from mentioning the testimony of those witnesses, who only heard of the appearance of the light, as we have related at length the testimony of eyewitnesses. These are enough, especially if we bear in mind that there is no reason for any doubt or illusion. We listened to a variety of witnesses; among them women, and the common and pious peasants. Moreover, electricity had yet reached that area and the inhabitants had not even heard of electricity. In those days, kerosene was the primary source of all light in the cells of the monastery, and the fancy lamp of kerosene used was thought to be an adornment, an extravagance in the monastery and the hermitage, in the peasants' homes and in the entire region.

Despite the fact that the light appeared as described, the monks at first would not believe any story by anyone until they first checked it very '. Closely or verified it by personal experience.

What is consoling in this regard is the fact that the light at first appeared to simple people, even to women who were poor and illiterate. At the end, it appeared to the Moslem administrator and his soldiers. This way, no one can have any doubt that it was an exclusive experience. The monks at the monastery themselves were the most doubting, and the least believing of all. Most of them remained non-believers until they saw the body of Father Charbel preserved. The strength of the faith of the people and the miracles concerning this body overwhelmed them. They remind me of St. Thomas who doubted the Resurrection of Christ "without probing the nail prints in His hands, without putting his finger and placing his hand into His side" (John 20:25).

God allowed all this to take place, and we marvel at it. Nobody can say that the monks invented this story for their own benefit by seducing the public. This in itself is a sign from God to honor His servant, Charbel, the hermit. God, in His divine plan, has dealt with us before in a simple way. The Angels of God announced the birth of the Redeemer to the shepherds of Bethlehem. The light of God appeared to the Magi in the remote east. He sent a shining beam to precede them, lighting their path and showing them the way to the manger of Bethlehem, where they would see the Messiah, worship Him and offer Him their gifts of gold, frankencense ant myrth (Mt. 2:11).

Here again, God directs us to the condition of his faithful servant, Charbel, by means of light pouring from the darkness of the lowly tomb, marvelous brilliance seen by simple Christian people and Moslem men not by scientists, nor monks, nor hermits.

From the preceding testimonies, it seems that the appearance of the light on the tomb of Father Charbel was a primary reason for the opening of the tomb, to inspect the condition of the body and take the necessary steps to preserve it in a special place or in a proper coffin, regardless of whether or not it was intact. There was another immediate reason for the opening of the tomb and that was to determine what caused the light.

Another reason that prompted the monks was that rumors said the faithful from the neighborhood were determined to open the tomb by force in secret to see the condition of the body of the "saint and to be blesses by him. They believed that the light, which appeared around the tomb many times, was sent from God to honor Charbel. They wanted to divide Charbel's body and bones among them, as saintly relics, which they intended to wear on their person and place in their homes to protect them selves from adversities and to assure them health of body, peace if mind and abundance of earthly goods.

The investigations show that some people had opened the tomb when the superior was absent from the monastery and that they saw the "saint' floating on the water, as if he were still alive, sleeping, oblivious to the cold, the dampness, and the water from the rain pipe of the church. For four months, it had been dripping over Charbel causing a perforation in hi eye and deforming the tip of his nose.

These people upon seeing the body of the "saint" were extremely afraid and filled with awe. They took as a blessing relics and a few hairs from his beard.

In addition, the superior of the monastery and the monks had opened the tomb to ascertain the condition of Father Charbel's corpse. They were to report on it, to the Patriarch and ask for his permission to remove the body. According to the testimony of an eyewitness, Father Francis Sibrini a monk of the Lebanese Order:

More than three months after death and burial, when the news on the light coming from the tomb became more frequent, visitors started to journey from many villages, bringing along their sick. Some would rush to the entrance of the tomb to take a relic from the body of the saint. The monks asked the superior to allow the opening of the tomb. He agreed and when the tomb was opened, they found the body almost completely immersed in water. They returned to the superior insisting that he allow them to take it out of the water and bury it near the church in a dry place to protect it from dampness and corruption. He agreed, but first sent an emissary to the Patriarch to explain the situation, asking him what should be done. He also explained the story of the lights saying that no one could stop the visitors and turn them away from the tomb. His Beatitude gave orders to keep the body where it was, to remove the water from around it, to elevate it from the floor, and to take the necessary steps to prevent the water from seeping into the tomb. And so, the tomb was again opened. The monks went inside, removed the water, elevated the body on two planks over two blocks of wood, added soil to the roof of the tomb and flattened it, so the water would not seep inside. The first time that I, myself, saw the body with my own eyes, it had not decayed. I am positive that it was the body of Father Charbel because nobody was buried there after him. He had not changed. The body remained that way in the same place inside the tomb for about five months, until the Patriarch issued an order to remove it and place it in a hidden area, unavailable to visitors. The reason for this was because visitors were flocking from everywhere and had opened the tomb by force they saw the body and took hair from his beard. They removed pieces of his fingernails or his clothing and carried away dirt from the tomb. They took anything as a relic.

Why should we be amazed at what these pilgrims did out of their faith and devotion in order to take a blessing to the sick in their families, when the monks, themselves, who were in charge of caring for the tomb and guarding the body of Father Charbel, had initially opened the tomb without the authorization of the Patriarch.

Their successors in the monastery did the same thing, fifty years later, when the perspiration from the body of Father Charbel overflowed, gushing from the floor of the chapel near the tomb. The monks secretly opened the tomb in the darkness of night on February 25, 1950, without asking permission of the proper authority. When they saw the body of Father Charbel immersed in a blood-like perspiration, they inspected his clothing, then closed the coffin and sealed the tomb.

Afterwards, they had recourse to the Patriarchal authority to absolve them from excommunication, in case they had incurred it by their actions. At the same time, they requested that the tomb be opened, and the body examined of facially by knowledgeable people. The Patriarch acquiesced by issuing a decree on March 10, 1950.

The intensity of piety of the people of the East overcame their proper behavior, when experiencing extraordinary spiritual events, to a point where they sometimes disregarded the law. However, their good intentions, their love for the things of God, and their respect for the saints after death, all can be taken as a justification of their actions.

This enthusiasm dates back in early Christian history. We recall the pious women who followed Jesus and served him "very early," just after sunrise, on the first day of the week when they came to the tomb. They said to one another, "Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" (Mark 16:2,3). They were women and yet had the courage to come to the tomb, its door sealed by a large stone placed by the authority of the Roman Empire, guarded by the soldiers day and night. These women didn't heed the fact that Jewish leaders, out of their fear of Jesus, were always alert and hostile.

Therefore, we cannot blame the people of the neighboring villages of the monastery of St. Maron, who had the audacity to open the tomb of Father Charbel by force and remove the small stone from its door in order to see Father Charbel and pray to him. It is enough to say that they only did what the monks and their superior had also done.

Their motives lie in their faith, hope and love and the belief that God would cure their sickness through the intercession of his servant, Charbel, especially if they could obtain a relic from his body. We even praise them for their actions, which motivated the superior of the monastery to present Charbel's case to the Patriarch.

The star that was shining on the tomb of Charbel for three months was only the beginning of what God would perform through his servant, as is written in the prophecy in the Deaths Record of the monastery.


SENSUS FIDEI IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH: A VATICAN CONTRIBUTION

$
0
0



SENSUS FIDEI
IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH*
(2014)





CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter One: The sensus fidei in Scripture and Tradition

1. Biblical teaching

a) Faith as response to the Word of God
b) The personal and ecclesial dimensions of faith
c) The capacity of believers to know and witness to the truth

2. The development of the idea, and its place in the history of the Church

a) Patristic period
b) Medieval period
c) Reformation and post-Reformation period
d) 19th century
e) 20th century

Chapter Two: The sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer

1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith

2. Manifestations of the sensus fidei in the personal life of believers

Chapter Three: The sensus fidei fidelium in the life of the Church

1. The sensus fidei and the development of Christian doctrine and practice

a) Retrospective and prospective aspects of the sensus fidei
b) The contribution of the laity to the sensus fidelium

2. The sensus fidei and the magisterium

a) The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium
b) The magisterium nurtures, discerns and judges the sensus fidelium 
c) Reception

3. The sensus fidei and theology

a) Theologians depend on the sensus fidelium
b) Theologians reflect on the sensus fidelium

4. Ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei

Chapter Four: How to discern authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei

1. Dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei

a) Participation in the life of the Church
b) Listening to the word of God
c) Openness to reason
d) Adherence to the magisterium
e) Holiness – humility, freedom and joy
f) Seeking the edification of the Church

2. Applications

a) The sensus fidei and popular religiosity
b) The sensus fidei and public opinion
c) Ways of consulting the faithful

Conclusion

* PRELIMINARY NOTE

In its quinquennium of 2009-2014, the International Theological Commission studied the nature of sensus fidei and its place in the life of the Church. The work took place in a subcommission presided by Msgr. Paul McPartlan and composed of the following members: Fr. Serge Thomas Bonino, O.P. (Secretary General); Sr. Sara Butler, M.S.B.T.; Rev. Antonio Castellano, S.D.B.; Rev. Adelbert Denaux; Msgr. Tomislav Ivanĉić; Bishop Jan Liesen; Rev. Leonard Santedi Kinkupu, Doctor Thomas Söding, and Msgr. Jerzy Szymik.

The general discussions of this theme were held in numerous meetings of the subcommission and during the Plenary Sessions of the same International Theological Commission held in Rome between 2011 and 2014. The text “Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church” was approved in forma specifica by the majority of members of commission, by a written vote, and was then submitted to its President, Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who authorized its publication.

Introduction

1. By the gift of the Holy Spirit, ‘the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father’ and bears witness to the Son (Jn 15:26), all of the baptised participate in the prophetic office of Jesus Christ, ‘the faithful and true witness’ (Rev 3:14). They are to bear witness to the Gospel and to the apostolic faith in the Church and in the world. The Holy Spirit anoints them and equips them for that high calling, conferring on them a very personal and intimate knowledge of the faith of the Church. In the first letter of St John, the faithful are told: ‘you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge’, ‘the anointing that you received from [Christ] abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you’, ‘his anointing teaches you about all things’ (1Jn 2:20, 27).

2. As a result, the faithful have an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, which enables them to recognise and endorse authentic Christian doctrine and practice, and to reject what is false. That supernatural instinct, intrinsically linked to the gift of faith received in the communion of the Church, is called the sensus fidei, and it enables Christians to fulfil their prophetic calling. In his first Angelus address, Pope Francis quoted the words of a humble, elderly woman he once met: ‘If the Lord did not forgive everything, the world would not exist’; and he commented with admiration: ‘that is the wisdom which the Holy Spirit gives’.[1] The woman’s insight is a striking manifestation of the sensus fidei, which, as well as enabling a certain discernment with regard to the things of faith, fosters true wisdom and gives rise, as here, to proclamation of the truth. It is clear, therefore, that the sensus fidei is a vital resource for the new evangelisation to which the Church is strongly committed in our time.[2]

3. As a theological concept, the sensus fidei refers to two realities which are distinct though closely connected, the proper subject of one being the Church, ‘pillar and bulwark of the truth’ (1Tim 3:15),[3] while the subject of the other is the individual believer, who belongs to the Church through the sacraments of initiation, and who, by means of regular celebration of the Eucharist, in particular, participates in her faith and life. On the one hand, the sensus fidei refers to the personal capacity of the believer, within the communion of the Church, to discern the truth of faith. On the other hand, the sensus fidei refers to a communal and ecclesial reality: the instinct of faith of the Church herself, by which she recognises her Lord and proclaims his word. The sensus fidei in this sense is reflected in the convergence of the baptised in a lived adhesion to a doctrine of faith or to an element of Christian praxis. This convergence (consensus) plays a vital role in the Church: the consensus fidelium is a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith.[4]In the present document, we use the term, sensus fidei fidelis, to refer to the personal aptitude of the believer to make an accurate discernment in matters of faith, and sensus fidei fidelium to refer to the Church’s own instinct of faith. According to the context, sensus fidei refers to either the former or the latter, and in the latter case the term, sensus fidelium, is also used.

4. The importance of the sensus fidei in the life of the Church was strongly emphasised by the Second Vatican Council. Banishing the caricature of an active hierarchy and a passive laity, and in particular the notion of a strict separation between the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) and the learning Church (Ecclesia discens), the council taught that all the baptised participate in their own proper way in the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest and king. In particular, it taught that Christ fulfills his prophetic office not only by means of the hierarchy but also via the laity.

5. In the reception and application of the council’s teaching on this topic, however, many questions arise, especially in relation to controversies regarding various doctrinal or moral issues. What exactly is the sensus fidei and how can it be identified? What are the biblical sources for this idea and how does the sensus fidei function in the tradition of the faith? How does the sensus fidei relate to the ecclesiastical magisterium of the pope and the bishops, and to theology?[5] What are the conditions for an authentic exercise of the sensus fidei? Is the sensus fidei something different from the majority opinion of the faithful in a given time or place, and if so how does it differ from the latter? All of these questions require answers if the idea of the sensus fidei is to be understood more fully and used more confidently in the Church today.

6. The purpose of the present text is not to give an exhaustive account of the sensus fidei, but simply to clarify and deepen some important aspects of this vital notion in order to respond to certain issues, particularly regarding how to identify the authentic sensus fidei in situations of controversy, when for example there are tensions between the teaching of the magisterium and views claiming to express the sensus fidei. Accordingly, it will first consider the biblical sources for the idea of the sensus fidei and the way in which this idea has developed and functioned in the history and tradition of the Church (chapter one). The nature of the sensus fidei fidelis will then be considered, together with the manifestations of the latter in the personal life of the believer (chapter two). The document will then reflect on the sensus fidei fidelium, that is, the sensus fidei in its ecclesial form, considering first its role in the development of Christian doctrine and practice, then its relationship to the magisterium and to theology, respectively, and then also its importance for ecumenical dialogue (chapter three). Finally, it will seek to identify dispositions needed for an authentic participation in the sensus fidei - they constitute criteria for a discernment of the authentic sensus fidei - and will reflect on some applications of its findings to the concrete life of the Church (chapter four).

Chapter 1: The sensus fidei in Scripture and Tradition

7. The phrase, sensus fidei, is found neither in the Scriptures nor in the formal teaching of the Church until Vatican II. However, the idea that the Church as a whole is infallible in her belief, since she is the body and bride of Christ (cf. 1Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12; 5:21-32; Rev 21:9), and that all of her members have an anointing that teaches them (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27), being endowed with the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 16:13), is everywhere apparent from the very beginnings of Christianity. The present chapter will trace the main lines of the development of this idea, first in Scripture and then in the subsequent history of the Church.

1. Biblical teaching

a) Faith as response to the Word of God

8. Throughout the New Testament, faith is the fundamental and decisive response of human persons to the Gospel. Jesus proclaims the Gospel in order to bring people to faith: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’ (Mk 1:15). Paul reminds the early Christians of his apostolic proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to renew and deepen their faith: ‘Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you - unless you have come to believe in vain’ (1Cor 15:1-2). The understanding of faith in the New Testament is rooted in the Old Testament, and especially in the faith of Abram, who trusted completely in God’s promises (Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11,17). This faith is a free answer to the proclamation of the word of God, and as such it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be received by those who truly believe (cf. 1Cor 12:3). The ‘obedience of faith’ (Rom 1:5) is the result of God’s grace, who frees human beings and gives them membership in the Church (Gal 5:1,13).

9. The Gospel calls forth faith because it is not simply the conveying of religious information but the proclamation of the word of God, and ‘the power of God for salvation’, which is truly to be received (Rom 1:16-17; cf. Mt 11:15; Lk 7:22 [Is 26:19; 29:18; 35:5-6; 61:1-11]). It is the Gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24), the ‘revelation of the mystery’ of God (Rom 16:25), and the ‘word of truth’ (Eph 1:13). The Gospel has a substantial content: the coming of God’s Kingdom, the resurrection and exaltation of the crucified Jesus Christ, the mystery of salvation and glorification by God in the Holy Spirit. The Gospel has a strong subject: Jesus himself, the Word of God, who sends out his apostles and their followers, and it takes the direct form of inspired and authorised proclamation by words and deeds. To receive the Gospel requires a response of the whole person ‘with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ (Mk 12:31). This is the response of faith, which is ‘the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’ (Heb 11:1).

10. ‘“Faith” is both an act of belief or trust and also that which is believed or confessed, fides qua and fides quae, respectively. Both aspects work together inseparably, since trust is adhesion to a message with intelligible content, and confession cannot be reduced to mere lip service, it must come from the heart.’[6] The Old and New Testaments clearly show that the form and content of faith belong together.

b) The personal and ecclesial dimensions of faith

11. The scriptures show that the personal dimension of faith is integrated into the ecclesial dimension; both singular and plural forms of the first person are found: ‘we believe’ (cf. Gal 2:16) and ‘I believe’ (cf. Gal 2:19-20). In his letters, Paul recognises the faith of believers as both a personal and an ecclesial reality. He teaches that everyone who confesses that ‘Jesus is Lord’ is inspired by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). The Spirit incorporates every believer into the body of Christ and gives him or her a special role in order to build up the Church (cf. 1Cor 12:4-27). In the letter to the Ephesians, confession of the one and only God is connected with the reality of a life of faith in the Church: ‘There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all’ (Eph 4:4-6).

12. In its personal and ecclesial dimensions, faith has the following essential aspects:

i) Faith requires repentance. In the proclamation of the prophets of Israel and of John the Baptist (cf. Mk 1:4), as well as in the preaching of the Good News by Jesus himself (Mk 1:14f.) and in the mission of the Apostles (Acts 2:38-42; 1Thess 1:9f.), repentance means the confession of one’s sins and the beginning of a new life lived within the community of the covenant of God (cf. Rom 12:1f.).

ii) Faith is both expressed in and nourished by prayer and worship (leiturgia). Prayer can take various forms - begging, imploring, praising, thanksgiving - and the confession of faith is a special form of prayer. Liturgical prayer, and pre-eminently the celebration of the Eucharist, has from the very beginning been essential to the life of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42). Prayer takes place both in public (cf. 1Cor 14) and in private (cf. Mt 6:5). For Jesus, the Our Father (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:1-4) expresses the essence of faith. It is a ‘summary of the whole Gospel’.[7] Significantly, its language is that of ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our’.

iii) Faith brings knowledge. The one who believes is able to recognise the truth of God (cf. Phil 3:10f.). Such knowledge springs from reflection on the experience of God, based on revelation and shared in the community of believers. This is the witness of both Old and New Testament Wisdom theology (Ps 111:10; cf. Prov 1:7; 9:10; Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22).

iv) Faith leads to confession (marturia). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, believers know the one in whom they have placed their trust (cf. 2Tim 1:12), and are able to give an account of the hope that is in them (cf. 1Pet 3:15), thanks to the prophetic and apostolic proclamation of the Gospel (cf. Rom 10:9f.). They do that in their own name; but they do it from within the communion of believers.

v) Faith involves confidence. To trust in God means to base one’s whole life on the promise of God. In Heb 11, many Old Testament believers are mentioned as members of a great procession through time and space to God in heaven, guided by Jesus the ‘the pioneer and perfecter of our faith’ (Heb 12:3). Christians are part of this procession, sharing the same hope and conviction (Heb 11:1), and already ‘surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses’ (Heb 12:1).

vi) Faith entails responsibility, and especially charity and service (diakonia). The disciples will be known ‘by their fruits’ (Mt 7:20). The fruits belong essentially to faith, because faith, which comes from listening to the word of God, requires obedience to his will. The faith which justifies (Gal 2:16) is ‘faith working through love’ (Gal 5:6; cf. Jas 2:21-24). Love for one’s brother and sister is in fact the criterion for love of God (1Jn 4:20).

c) The capacity of believers to know and witness to the truth

13. In Jeremiah, a ‘new covenant’ is promised, one which will involve the internalisation of God’s word: ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord”, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more’ (Jer 31:33-34). The people of God is to be created anew, receiving ‘a new spirit’, so as to be able to recognise the law and to follow it (Ez 11:19-20). This promise is fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus and the life of the Church by the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is especially fulfilled in the celebration of the Eucharist, where the faithful receive the cup that is ‘the new covenant’ in the Lord’s blood (Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; cf. Rom 11:27; Heb 8:6-12; 10:14-17).

14. In his farewell discourse, in the context of the Last Supper, Jesus promised his disciples the ‘Advocate’, the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14). The Spirit will remind them of the words of Jesus (Jn 14:26), enable them to testify to the word of God (Jn 15:26-27), ‘prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’ (Jn 16:8), and ‘guide’ the disciples ‘into all the truth’ (Jn 16:13). All of this happens thanks to the gift of the Spirit through the paschal mystery, celebrated in the life of the Christian community, particularly in the Eucharist, until the Lord comes (cf. 1Cor 11:26). The disciples have an inspired sense for the ever-actual truth of God’s word incarnate in Jesus and of its meaning for today (cf. 2Cor 6:2), and that is what drives the people of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bear witness to their faith in the Church and in the world.

15. Moses wished that all of the people might be prophets by receiving the spirit of the Lord (Num 11:29). That wish became an eschatological promise through the prophet, Joel, and at Pentecost Peter proclaims the fulfillment of the promise: ‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy’ (Acts 2:17; cf. Joel 3:1). The Spirit who was promised (cf. Acts 1:8) is poured out, enabling the faithful to speak ‘about God's deeds of power’ (Acts 2:11).

16. The first description of the community of believers in Jerusalem combines four elements: ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42). Devotion to these four elements powerfully manifests apostolic faith. Faith clings to the authentic teaching of the Apostles, which remembers the teaching of Jesus (cf. Lk 1:1-4); it draws believers into fellowship with one another; it is renewed through the encounter with the Lord in the breaking of bread; and it is nourished in prayer.

17. When in the church of Jerusalem a conflict arose between the Hellenists and the Hebrews about the daily distribution, the twelve apostles summoned ‘the whole community of the disciples’ and took a decision that ‘pleased the whole community’. The whole community chose ‘seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom’, and set them before the apostles who then prayed and laid their hands upon them (Acts 6:1-6). When problems arose in the church of Antioch concerning circumcision and the practice of the Torah, the case was submitted to the judgment of the mother church of Jerusalem. The resulting apostolic council was of the greatest importance for the future of the Church. Luke describes the sequence of events carefully. The ‘apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter’ (Acts 15:6). Peter told the story of his being inspired by the Holy Spirit to baptise Cornelius and his house even though they were uncircumcised (Acts 15:7-11). Paul and Barnabas told of their missionary experience in the local church of Antioch (Acts 15:12; cf. 15:1-5). James reflected on those experiences in the light of the Scriptures (Acts 15:13-18), and proposed a decision that favoured the unity of the Church (Acts 15:19-21). ‘Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas’ (Acts 15:22). The letter which communicated the decision was received by the community with the joy of faith (Acts 15:23-33). For Luke, these events demonstrated proper ecclesial action, involving both the pastoral service of the apostles and elders and also the participation of the community, qualified to participate by their faith.

18. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul identifies the foolishness of the cross as the wisdom of God (1Cor 1:18-25). Explaining how this paradox is comprehensible, he says: ‘we have the mind of Christ’ (1Cor 2:16; ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν; nos autem sensum Christi habemus, in the Vulgate). ‘We’ here refers to the church of Corinth in communion with her Apostle as part of the whole community of believers (1Cor 1:1-2). The capacity to recognise the crucified Messiah as the wisdom of God is given by the Holy Spirit; it is not a privilege of the wise and the scribes (cf. 1Cor 1:20), but is given to the poor, the marginalised, and to those who are ‘foolish’ in the eyes of the world (1Cor 1:26-29). Even so, Paul criticises the Corinthians for being ‘still of the flesh’, still not ready for ‘solid food’ (1Cor 3:1-4). Their faith needs to mature and to find better expression in their words and deeds.

19. In his own ministry, Paul shows respect for, and a desire to deepen, the faith of his communities. In 2Cor 1:24, he describes his mission as an apostle in the following terms: ‘I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith’, and he encourages the Corinthians: ‘Stand firm in your faith’ (1Cor 16:14). To the Thessalonians, he writes a letter ‘to strengthen and encourage you for the sake of your faith’ (1Thess 3:2), and he prays for the faith of other communities likewise (cf. Col 1:9; Eph 1:17-19). The apostle not only works for an increase in the faith of others, he knows his own faith to be strengthened thereby in a sort of dialogue of faith: ‘… that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine’ (Rom 1:17). The faith of the community is a reference point for Paul’s teaching and a focus for his pastoral service, giving rise to a mutually beneficial interchange between him and his communities.

20. In the first letter of John, the apostolic Tradition is mentioned (1Jn 1:1-4), and the readers are reminded of their baptism: ‘You have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge’ (1Jn 2:20). The letter continues: ‘As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him’ (1Jn 2:27).

21. Finally, in the Book of Revelation, John the prophet repeats in all of his letters to the churches (cf. Rev 2-3) the formula: ‘Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches’ (Rev 2:7, et al.). The members of the churches are charged to heed the living word of the Spirit, to receive it, and to give glory to God. It is by the obedience of faith, itself a gift of the Spirit, that the faithful are able to recognise the teaching they are receiving truly as the teaching of the same Spirit, and to respond to the instructions they are given.

2. The development of the idea, and its place in the history of the Church

22. The concept of the sensus fidelium began to be elaborated and used in a more systematic way at the time of the Reformation, though the decisive role of the consensus fidelium in the discernment and development of doctrine concerning faith and morals was already recognised in the patristic and medieval periods. What was still needed, however, was more attention to the specific role of the laity in this regard. That issue received attention particularly from the nineteenth century onwards.

a) Patristic period

23. The Fathers and theologians of the first few centuries considered the faith of the whole Church to be a sure point of reference for discerning the content of the apostolic Tradition. Their conviction about the solidity and even the infallibility of the discernment of the whole Church on matters of faith and morals was expressed in the context of controversy. They refuted the dangerous novelties introduced by heretics by comparing them with what was held and done in all the churches.[8] For Tertullian (c.160-c.225), the fact that all the churches have substantially the same faith testifies to Christ’s presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit; those go astray who abandon the faith of the whole Church.[9] For Augustine (354-430), the whole Church, ‘from the bishops to the least of the faithful’, bears witness to the truth.[10] The general consent of Christians functions as a sure norm for determining the apostolic faith: ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum [the judgement of the whole world is sure]’.[11] John Cassian (c.360-435) held that the universal consent of the faithful is a sufficient argument to confute heretics,[12] and Vincent of Lérins (died c.445) proposed as a norm the faith that was held everywhere, always, and by everyone (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).[13]

24. To resolve disputes among the faithful, the Church Fathers appealed not only to common belief but also to the constant tradition of practice. Jerome (c.345-420), for example, found justification for the veneration of relics by pointing to the practice of the bishops and of the faithful,[14] and Epiphanius (c.315-403), in defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity, asked whether anyone had ever dared to utter her name without adding ‘the Virgin’.[15]

25. The testimony of the patristic period chiefly concerns the prophetic witness of the people of God as a whole, something that has a certain objective character. The believing people as a whole cannot err in matters of faith, it was claimed, because they have received an anointing from Christ, the promised Holy Spirit, which equips them to discern the truth. Some Fathers of the Church also reflected on the subjective capacity of Christians animated by faith and indwelt by the Holy Spirit to maintain true doctrine in the Church and to reject error. Augustine, for example, called attention to this when he asserted that Christ ‘the interior Teacher’ enables the laity as well as their pastors not only to receive the truth of revelation but also to approve and transmit it.[16]

26. In the first five centuries, the faith of the Church as a whole proved decisive in determining the canon of Scripture and in defining major doctrines concerning, for example, the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, and the veneration and invocation of the saints. In some cases, as Blessed John Henry Newman (1801-90) remarked, the faith of the laity, in particular, played a crucial role. The most striking example was in the famous controversy in the fourth century with the Arians, who were condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), where the divinity of Jesus Christ was defined. From then until the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), however, there continued to be uncertainty among the bishops. During that period, ‘the divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate’. ‘[T]here was a temporary suspense of the functions of the “Ecclesia docens”. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.’[17]

b) Medieval period

27. Newman also commented that ‘in a later age, when the learned Benedictines of Germany [cf. Rabanus Maurus, c.780-856] and France [cf. Ratramnus, died c.870] were perplexed in their enunciation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, Paschasius [c.790 - c.860] was supported by the faithful in his maintenance of it.’[18] Something similar happened with respect to the dogma, defined by Pope Benedict XII in the constitution, Benedictus Deus (1336), regarding the beatific vision, enjoyed already by souls after purgatory and before the day of judgement:[19] ‘the tradition, on which the definition was made, was manifested in the consensus fidelium, with a luminousness which the succession of Bishops, though many of them were “Sancti Patres ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus”, did not furnish’. ‘[M]ost considerable deference was paid to the “sensus fidelium”; their opinion and advice indeed was not asked, but their testimony was taken, their feelings consulted, their impatience, I had almost said, feared.’[20] The continuing development, among the faithful, of belief in, and devotion to, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in spite of opposition to the doctrine by certain theologians, is another major example of the role played in the Middle Ages by the sensus fidelium.

28. The Scholastic doctors acknowledged that the Church, the congregatio fidelium, cannot err in matters of faith because she is taught by God, united with Christ her Head, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Thomas Aquinas, for example, takes this as a premise on the grounds that the universal Church is governed by the Holy Spirit who, as the Lord Jesus promised, would teach her ‘all truth’ (Jn 16:13).[21] He knew that the faith of the universal Church is authoritatively expressed by her prelates,[22] but he was also particularly interested in each believer’s personal instinct of faith, which he explored in relation to the theological virtue of faith.

c) Reformation and post-Reformation period

29. The challenge posed by the 16th century Reformers required renewed attention to the sensus fidei fidelium, and the first systematic treatment of it was worked out as a result. The Reformers emphasised the primacy of the word of God in Sacred Scripture (Scriptura sola) and the priesthood of the faithful. In their view, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit gives all of the baptised the ability to interpret, by themselves, God’s word; this conviction did not discourage them, however, from teaching in synods and producing catechisms for the instruction of the faithful. Their doctrines called into question, among other things, the role and status of Tradition, the authority of the pope and the bishops to teach, and the inerrancy of councils. In response to their claim that the promise of Christ’s presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit was given to the whole Church, not only to the Twelve but also to every believer,[23] Catholic theologians were led to explain more fully how the pastors serve the faith of the people. In the process, they gave increasing attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy.

30. Theologians of the Catholic Reformation, building on previous efforts to develop a systematic ecclesiology, took up the question of revelation, its sources, and their authority. At first, they responded to the Reformers’ critique of certain doctrines by appealing to the infallibility of the whole Church, laity and clergy together, in credendo.[24] The Council of Trent, in fact, repeatedly appealed to the judgment of the whole Church in its defence of disputed articles of Catholic doctrine. Its Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist (1551), for example, specifically invoked ‘the universal understanding of the Church [universum Ecclesiae sensum]’.[25]

31. Melchior Cano (1509-1560), who attended the council, provided the first extended treatment of the sensus fidei fidelium in his defence of Catholic esteem for the probative force of Tradition in theological argument. In his treatise, De locis theologicis (1564),[26] he identified the present common consent of the faithful as one of four criteria for determining whether a doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic tradition.[27] In a chapter on the Church’s authority with respect to doctrine, he argued that the faith of the Church cannot fail because she is the Spouse (Hos 2; 1Cor 11:2) and Body of Christ (Eph 5), and because the Holy Spirit guides her (Jn 14:16, 26).[28] Cano also noted that the word ‘Church’ sometimes designates all of the faithful, including the pastors, and sometimes designates her leaders and pastors (principes et pastores), for they too possess the Holy Spirit.[29] He used the word in the first sense when he asserted that the Church’s faith cannot fail, that the Church cannot be deceived in believing, and that infallibility belongs not only to the Church of past ages but also to the Church as it is presently constituted. He used ‘Church’ in the second sense when he taught that her pastors are infallible in giving authoritative doctrinal judgments, for they are assisted in this task by the Holy Spirit (Eph 4; 1 Tim 3).[30]

32. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), defending the Catholic faith against its Reformation critics, took the visible Church, the ‘universality of all believers’, as his starting point. For him, all that the faithful hold as de fide, and all that the bishops teach as pertaining to the faith, is necessarily true and to be believed.[31] He maintained that the councils of the Church cannot fail because they possess this consensus Ecclesiae universalis.[32]

33. Other theologians of the post-Tridentine era continued to affirm the infallibility of the Ecclesia (by which they meant the entire Church, inclusive of her pastors) in credendo, but began to distinguish the roles of the ‘teaching Church’ and the ‘learning Church’ rather sharply. The earlier emphasis on the ‘active’ infallibility of the Ecclesia in credendo was gradually replaced by an emphasis on the active role of the Ecclesia docens. It became common to say that the Ecclesia discens had only a ‘passive’ infallibility.

d) 19th Century

34. The 19th century was a decisive period for the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelium. It saw, in the Catholic Church, partly in response to criticism from representatives of modern culture and from Christians of other traditions, and partly from an inner maturation, the rise of historical consciousness, a revival of interest in the Fathers of the Church and in medieval theologians, and a renewed exploration of the mystery of the Church. In this context, Catholic theologians such as Johann Adam Möhler (1796-1838), Giovanni Perrone (1794-1876), and John Henry Newman gave new attention to the sensus fidei fidelium as a locus theologicus in order to explain how the Holy Spirit maintains the whole Church in truth and to justify developments in the Church’s doctrine. Theologians highlighted the active role of the whole Church, especially the contribution of the lay faithful, in preserving and transmitting the Church’s faith; and the magisterium implicitly confirmed this insight in the process leading to the definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854).

35. To defend the Catholic faith against Rationalism, the Tübingen scholar, Johann Adam Möhler, sought to portray the Church as a living organism and to grasp the principles that governed the development of doctrine. In his view, it is the Holy Spirit who animates, guides, and unites the faithful as a community in Christ, bringing about in them an ecclesial ‘consciousness’ of the faith (Gemeingeist or Gesamtsinn), something akin to a Volksgeist or national spirit.[33] This sensus fidei, which is the subjective dimension of Tradition, necessarily includes an objective element, the Church’s teaching, for the Christian ‘sense’ of the faithful, which lives in their hearts and is virtually equivalent to Tradition, is never divorced from its content.[34]

36. John Henry Newman initially investigated the sensus fidei fidelium to resolve his difficulty concerning the development of doctrine. He was the first to publish an entire treatise on the latter topic, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), and to spell out the characteristics of faithful development. To distinguish between true and false developments, he adopted Augustine’s norm - the general consent of the whole Church, ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum’ – but he saw that an infallible authority is necessary to maintain the Church in the truth.

37. Using insights from Möhler and Newman,[35] Perrone retrieved the patristic understanding of the sensus fidelium in order to respond to a widespread desire for a papal definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; he found in the unanimous consent, or conspiratio, of the faithful and their pastors a warrant for the apostolic origin of this doctrine. He maintained that the most distinguished theologians attributed probative force to the sensus fidelium, and that the strength of one ‘instrument of tradition’ can make up for the deficit of another, e.g., ‘the silence of the Fathers’.[36]

38. The influence of Perrone’s research on Pope Pius IX’s decision to proceed with the definition of the Immaculate Conception is evident from the fact that before he defined it the Pope asked the bishops of the world to report to him in writing regarding the devotion of their clergy and faithful people to the conception of the Immaculate Virgin.[37] In the apostolic constitution containing the definition, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pope Pius IX said that although he already knew the mind of the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked the bishops to inform him of the piety and devotion of their faithful in this regard, and he concluded that ‘Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church [perpetuus Ecclesiae sensus], the remarkable agreement of Catholic bishops and the faithful [singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac fidelium conspiratio], and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors’ all wonderfully illustrated and proclaimed the doctrine.[38] He thus used the language of Perrone’s treatise to describe the combined testimony of the bishops and the faithful. Newman highlighted the word, conspiratio, and commented: ‘the two, the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided’.[39]

39. When Newman later wrote On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859), it was to demonstrate that the faithful (as distinct from their pastors) have their own, active role to play in conserving and transmitting the faith. ‘[T]he tradition of the Apostles’ is ‘committed to the whole Church in its various constituents and functions per modum unius’, but the bishops and the lay faithful bear witness to it in diverse ways. The tradition, he says, ‘manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies, rites, ceremonies, and customs, by events, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history’.[40] For Newman, ‘there is something in the “pastorum et fidelium conspiratio” which is not in the pastors alone’.[41] In this work, Newman quoted at length from the arguments proposed over a decade earlier by Giovanni Perrone in favor of the definition of the Immaculate Conception.[42]

40. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution, Pastor Aeternus, in which the infallible magisterium of the pope was defined, by no means ignored the sensus fidei fidelium; on the contrary, it presupposed it. The original draft constitution, Supremi Pastoris, from which it developed, had a chapter on the infallibility of the Church (chapter nine).[43] When the order of business was changed in order to resolve the question of papal infallibility, however, discussion of that foundation was deferred and never taken up. In his relatio on the definition of papal infallibility, Bishop Vincent Gasser nevertheless explained that the special assistance given to the pope does not set him apart from the Church and does not exclude consultation and cooperation.[44] The definition of the Immaculate Conception was an example, he said, of a case ‘so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from the bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches’.[45] In a phrase intended to exclude Gallicanism, Pastor Aeternus asserted that ex cathedra doctrinal definitions of the pope concerning faith and morals are irreformable ‘of themselves and not from the consent of the Church [ex sese non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]’,[46] but that does not make the consensus Ecclesiae superfluous. What it excludes is the theory that such a definition requires this consent, antecedent or consequent, as a condition for its authoritative status.[47] In response to the Modernist crisis, a decree from the Holy Office, Lamentabili (1907), confirmed the freedom of the Ecclesia docens vis-à-vis the Ecclesia discens. The decree censured a proposition that would allow the pastors to teach only what the faithful already believed.[48]

e) 20th Century

41. Catholic theologians in the 20th century explored the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelium in the context of a theology of Tradition, a renewed ecclesiology, and a theology of the laity. They emphasised that ‘the Church’ is not identical with her pastors; that the whole Church, by the action of the Holy Spirit, is the subject or ‘organ’ of Tradition; and that lay people have an active role in the transmission of the apostolic faith. The magisterium endorsed these developments both in the consultation leading to the definition of the glorious Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and in the Second Vatican Council’s retrieval and confirmation of the doctrine of the sensus fidei.

42. In 1946, following the pattern of his predecessor, Pope Pius XII sent an encyclical letter, Deiparae Virginis Mariae, to all the bishops of the world asking them to inform him ‘about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary’. He thus reaffirmed the practice of consulting the faithful in advance of making a dogmatic definition, and, in the apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus (1950), he reported the ‘almost unanimous response’ he had received.[49] Belief in Mary’s Assumption was, indeed, ‘thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful’.[50] Pope Pius XII referred to ‘the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people’, and said, with regard now to belief in Mary’s Assumption, as Pope Pius IX had said with regard to belief in her Immaculate Conception, that there was a ‘singularis catholicorum Antistitum et fidelium conspiratio’. He added that the conspiratio showed ‘in an entirely certain and infallible way’ that Mary’s Assumption was ‘a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly’.[51] In both cases, then, the papal definitions confirmed and celebrated the deeply-held beliefs of the faithful.

43. Yves M.-J. Congar (1904-1995) contributed significantly to the development of the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelis and the sensus fidei fidelium. In Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat (orig. 1953), he explored this doctrine in terms of the participation of the laity in the Church’s prophetical function. Congar was acquainted with Newman’s work and adopted the same scheme (i.e. the threefold office of the Church, and the sensus fidelium as an expression of the prophetic office) without, however, tracing it directly to Newman.[52] He described the sensus fidelium as a gift of the Holy Spirit ‘given to the hierarchy and the whole body of the faithful together’, and he distinguished the objective reality of faith (which constitutes the tradition) from the subjective aspect, the grace of faith.[53] Where earlier authors had underlined the distinction between the Ecclesia docens and the Ecclesia discens, Congar was concerned to show their organic unity. ‘The Church loving and believing, that is, the body of the faithful, is infallible in the living possession of the faith, not in a particular act or judgment’, he wrote.[54] The teaching of the hierarchy is at the service of communion.

44. In many ways, the Second Vatican Council’s teaching reflects Congar’s contribution. Chapter one of Lumen Gentium, on ‘The Mystery of the Church’, teaches that the Holy Spirit ‘dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple’. ‘Guiding the Church in the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of ministry, he bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22)’.[55] Chapter two then continues to deal with the Church as a whole, as the ‘People of God’, prior to distinctions between lay and ordained. The article (LG 12) which mentions the sensus fidei teaches that, having ‘an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27)’, the ‘whole body of the faithful … cannot err in matters of belief’. The ‘Spirit of truth’ arouses and sustains a ‘supernatural appreciation of the faith [supernaturali sensu fidei]’, shown when ‘the whole people, … “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” … manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals’. By means of the sensus fidei, ‘the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1Thess 2:13)’. According to this description, the sensus fidei is an active capacity or sensibility by which they are able to receive and understand the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3)’. Indeed, by means of it, the people not only ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith’, but also ‘penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life’. It is the means by which the people shares in ‘Christ’s prophetic office’.[56]

45. Lumen Gentium subsequently describes, in chapters three and four, respectively, how Christ exercises his prophetic office not only through the Church’s pastors, but also through the lay faithful. It teaches that, ‘until the full manifestation of his glory’, the Lord fulfills this office ‘not only by the hierarchy who teach in his name and by his power, but also by the laity’. With regard to the latter, it continues: ‘He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the appreciation of the faith and the grace of the word [sensu fidei et gratia verbi instruit] (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Apoc 19:10) so that the power of the Gospel may shine out in daily family and social life.’ Strengthened by the sacraments, ‘the laity become powerful heralds of the faith in things to be hoped for (cf. Heb 11:1)’; ‘the laity can, and must, do valuable work for the evangelisation of the world’.[57] Here, the sensus fidei is presented as Christ’s gift to the faithful, and once again is described as an active capacity by which the faithful are able to understand, live and proclaim the truths of divine revelation. It is the basis for their work of evangelisation.

46. The sensus fidei is also evoked in the council’s teaching on the development of doctrine, in the context of the transmission of the apostolic faith. Dei Verbum says that the apostolic Tradition ‘makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit’. ‘There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on’, and the council identifies three ways in which this happens: ‘through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19 and 51)’; ‘from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience [ex intima spiritualium rerum quam experiuntur intelligentia]’; and ‘from the preaching of those [the bishops] who have received … the sure charism of truth’.[58] Although this passage does not name the sensus fidei, the contemplation, study, and experience of believers to which it refers are all clearly associated with the sensus fidei, and most commentators agree that the council fathers were consciously invoking Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine. When this text is read in light of the description of the sensus fidei in Lumen Gentium 12 as a supernatural appreciation of the faith, aroused by the Holy Spirit, by which people guided by their pastors adhere unfailingly to the faith, it is readily seen to express the same idea. When referring to ‘the remarkable harmony’ that should exist between the bishops and the faithful in the practice and profession of the faith handed on by the apostles, Dei Verbum actually uses the very expression found in the definitions of both Marian dogmas, ‘singularis fiat Antistitum et fidelium conspiratio’.[59]

47. Since the council, the magisterium has reiterated key points from the council’s teaching on the sensus fidei,[60] and also addressed a new issue, namely, the importance of not presuming that public opinion inside (or outside) the Church is necessarily the same thing as the sensus fidei (fidelium). In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1981), Pope John Paul II considered the question as to how the ‘supernatural sense of faith’ may be related to the ‘consensus of the faithful’ and to majority opinion as determined by sociological and statistical research. The sensus fidei, he wrote, ‘does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful’. It is the task of the Church’s pastors to ‘promote the sense of the faith in all the faithful, examine and authoritatively judge the genuineness of its expressions, and educate the faithful in an ever more mature evangelical discernment’.[61]

Chapter 2: The sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer

48. This second chapter concentrates on the nature of the sensus fidei fidelis. It utilises, in particular, the framework of arguments and categories offered by classical theology in order to reflect how faith is operative in individual believers. Although the Biblical vision of faith is larger, the classical understanding highlights an essential aspect: the adherence of the intellect, through love, to revealed truth. This conceptualisation of faith serves still today to clarify the understanding of the sensus fidei fidelis. In these terms, the chapter also considers some manifestations of the sensus fidei fidelis in the personal lives of believers, it being clear that the personal and ecclesial aspects of the sensus fidei are inseparable.

1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith

49. The sensus fidei fidelis is a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith. It is intrinsically linked to the virtue of faith itself; it flows from, and is a property of, faith.[62] It is compared to an instinct because it is not primarily the result of rational deliberation, but is rather a form of spontaneous and natural knowledge, a sort of perception (aisthesis).

50. The sensus fidei fidelis arises, first and foremost, from the connaturality that the virtue of faith establishes between the believing subject and the authentic object of faith, namely the truth of God revealed in Christ Jesus. Generally speaking, connaturality refers to a situation in which an entity A has a relationship with another entity B so intimate that A shares in the natural dispositions of B as if they were its own. Connaturality permits a particular and profound form of knowledge. For example, to the extent that one friend is united to another, he or she becomes capable of judging spontaneously what suits the other because he or she shares the very inclinations of the other and so understands by connaturality what is good or bad for the other. This is a knowledge, in other words, of a different order than objective knowledge, which proceeds by way of conceptualisation and reasoning. It is a knowledge by empathy, or a knowledge of the heart.

51. Every virtue connaturalises its subject, in other words the one who possesses it, to its object, that is, to a certain type of action. What is meant by virtue here is the stable disposition (or habitus) of a person to behave in a certain way either intellectually or morally. Virtue is a kind of ‘second nature’, by which the human person constructs himself or herself by actualising freely and in accord with right reason the dynamisms inscribed in human nature. It thereby gives a definite, stable orientation to the activity of the natural faculties; it directs the latter to behaviours which the virtuous person henceforth accomplishes ‘naturally’, with ‘ease, self-mastery and joy’.[63]

52. Every virtue has a double effect: first, it naturally inclines the person who possesses it towards an object (a certain kind of action), and second, it spontaneously distances him or her from whatever is contrary to that object. For example, a person who has developed the virtue of chastity possesses a sort of ‘sixth sense’, ‘a kind of spiritual instinct’,[64] which enables him or her to discern the right way to behave even in the most complex situations, spontaneously perceiving what it is appropriate to do and what to avoid. A chaste person thereby instinctively adopts the right attitude, where the conceptual reasoning of the moralist might lead to perplexity and indecision.[65]

53. The sensus fidei is the form that the instinct which accompanies every virtue takes in the case of the virtue of faith. ‘Just as, by the habits of the other virtues, one sees what is becoming in respect of that habit, so, by the habit of faith, the human mind is directed to assent to such things as are becoming to a right faith, and not to assent to others.’[66]Faith, as a theological virtue, enables the believer to participate in the knowledge that God has of himself and of all things. In the believer, it takes the form of a ‘second nature’.[67]By means of grace and the theological virtues, believers become ‘participants of the divine nature’ (2Pet 1:4), and are in a way connaturalised to God. As a result, they react spontaneously on the basis of that participated divine nature, in the same way that living beings react instinctively to what does or does not suit their nature.

54. Unlike theology, which can be described as scientia fidei, the sensus fidei fidelis is not a reflective knowledge of the mysteries of faith which deploys concepts and uses rational procedures to reach its conclusions. As its name (sensus) indicates, it is akin rather to a natural, immediate and spontaneous reaction, and comparable to a vital instinct or a sort of ‘flair’ by which the believer clings spontaneously to what conforms to the truth of faith and shuns what is contrary to it.[68]

55. The sensus fidei fidelis is infallible in itself with regard to its object: the true faith.[69] However, in the actual mental universe of the believer, the correct intuitions of the sensus fidei can be mixed up with various purely human opinions, or even with errors linked to the narrow confines of a particular cultural context.[70]‘Although theological faith as such cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith.’[71]

56. The sensus fidei fidelis flows from the theological virtue of faith. That virtue is an interior disposition, prompted by love, to adhere without reserve to the whole truth revealed by God as soon as it is perceived as such. Faith does not therefore necessarily imply an explicit knowledge of the whole of revealed truth.[72]It follows that a certain type of sensus fidei can exist in ‘the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety’.[73]The Catholic Church therefore needs to be attentive to what the Spirit may be saying to her by means of believers in the churches and ecclesial communities not fully in communion with her.

57. Since it is a property of the theological virtue of faith, the sensus fidei fidelis develops in proportion to the development of the virtue of faith. The more the virtue of faith takes root in the heart and spirit of believers and informs their daily life, the more the sensus fidei fidelis develops and strengthens in them. Now, since faith, understood as a form of knowledge, is based on love, charity is needed in order to animate it and to inform it, so as to make it a living and lived faith (fides formata). Thus, the intensifying of faith within the believer particularly depends on the growth within him or her of charity, and the sensus fidei fidelis is therefore proportional to the holiness of one’s life. St Paul teaches that ‘God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us’ (Rom 5:5), and it follows that the development of the sensus fidei in the spirit of the believer is particularly due to the action of the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of love, who instils love in human hearts, the Holy Spirit opens to believers the possibility of a deeper and more intimate knowledge of Christ the Truth, on the basis of a union of charity: ‘Showing the truth is a property of the Holy Spirit, because it is love which brings about the revelation of secrets’.[74]

58. Charity enables the flourishing in believers of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who leads them to a higher understanding of the things of faith ‘in all spiritual wisdom and understanding’ (Col 1:9).[75]In fact, the theological virtues attain their full measure in the believer’s life only when the believer allows the Holy Spirit to guide him or her (cf. Rom 8:14). The gifts of the Spirit are precisely the gratuitous and infused interior dispositions which serve as a basis for the activity of the Spirit in the life of the believer. By means of these gifts of the Spirit, especially the gifts of understanding and knowledge, believers are made capable of understanding intimately the ‘spiritual realities which they experience’,[76]and rejecting any interpretation contrary to the faith.

59. There is a vital interaction in each believer between the sensus fidei and the living of faith in the various contexts of his or her personal life. On one hand, the sensus fidei enlightens and guides the way in which the believer puts his or her faith into practice. On the other hand, by keeping the commandments and putting faith into practice, the believer gains a deeper understanding of faith: ‘those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God’ (Jn 3:21). Putting faith into practice in the concrete reality of the existential situations in which he or she is placed by family, professional and cultural relations enriches the personal experience of the believer. It enables him or her to see more precisely the value and the limits of a given doctrine, and to propose ways of refining its formulation. That is why those who teach in the name of the Church should give full attention to the experience of believers, especially lay people, who strive to put the Church’s teaching into practice in the areas of their own specific experience and competence.

2. Manifestations of the sensus fidei in the personal life of believers

60. Three principal manifestations of the sensus fidei fidelis in the personal life of the believer can be highlighted. The sensus fidei fidelis enables individual believers: 1) to discern whether or not a particular teaching or practice that they actually encounter in the Church is coherent with the true faith by which they live in the communion of the Church (see below, §§61-63); 2) to distinguish in what is preached between the essential and the secondary (§64); and 3) to determine and put into practice the witness to Jesus Christ that they should give in the particular historical and cultural context in which they live (§65).

61. ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God ; for many false prophets have gone out into the world’ (1Jn 4:1). The sensus fidei fidelis confers on the believer the capacity to discern whether or not a teaching or practice is coherent with the true faith by which he or she already lives. If individual believers perceive or ‘sense’ that coherence, they spontaneously give their interior adherence to those teachings or engage personally in the practices, whether it is a matter of truths already explicitly taught or of truths not yet explicitly taught.

62. The sensus fidei fidelis also enables individual believers to perceive any disharmony, incoherence, or contradiction between a teaching or practice and the authentic Christian faith by which they live. They react as a music lover does to false notes in the performance of a piece of music. In such cases, believers interiorly resist the teachings or practices concerned and do not accept them or participate in them. ‘The habitus of faith possesses a capacity whereby, thanks to it, the believer is prevented from giving assent to what is contrary to the faith, just as chastity gives protection with regard to whatever is contrary to chastity.’[77]

63. Alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd. ‘The sheep follow [the Good Shepherd] because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run away from him because they do not know the voice of strangers’ (Jn 10:4-5). For St Thomas, a believer, even without theological competence, can and even must resist, by virtue of the sensus fidei, his or her bishop if the latter preaches heterodoxy.[78]In such a case, the believer does not treat himself or herself as the ultimate criterion of the truth of faith, but rather, faced with materially ‘authorised’ preaching which he or she finds troubling, without being able to explain exactly why, defers assent and appeals interiorly to the superior authority of the universal Church.[79]

64. The sensus fidei fidelis also enables the believer to distinguish in what is preached between what is essential for an authentic Catholic faith and what, without being formally against the faith, is only accidental or even indifferent with regard to the core of the faith. For example, by virtue of their sensus fidei, individual believers may relativise certain particular forms of Marian devotion precisely out of adherence to an authentic cult of the Virgin Mary. They might also distance themselves from preaching which unduly mixes together Christian faith and partisan political choices. By keeping the spirit of the believer focused in this way on what is essential to the faith, the sensus fidei fidelis guarantees an authentic Christian liberty (cf. Col 2:16-23), and contributes to a purification of faith.

65. Thanks to the sensus fidei fidelis and sustained by the supernatural prudence that the Spirit confers, the believer is able to sense, in new historical and cultural contexts, what might be the most appropriate ways in which to give an authentic witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, and moreover to act accordingly. The sensus fidei fidelis thus acquires a prospective dimension to the extent that, on the basis of the faith already lived, it enables the believer to anticipate a development or an explanation of Christian practice. Because of the reciprocal link between the practice of the faith and the understanding of its content, the sensus fidei fidelis contributes in this way to the emergence and illumination of aspects of the Catholic faith that were previously implicit; and because of the reciprocal link between the sensus fidei of the individual believer and the sensus fidei of the Church as such, that is the sensus fidei fidelium, such developments are never purely private, but always ecclesial. The faithful are always in relationship with one another, and with the magisterium and theologians, in the communion of the Church.

Chapter 3: The sensus fidei fidelium in the life of the Church

66. As the faith of the individual believer participates in the faith of the Church as a believing subject, so the sensus fidei (fidelis) of individual believers cannot be separated from the sensus fidei (fidelium) or ‘sensus Ecclesiae’[80] of the Church herself, endowed and sustained by the Holy Spirit,[81] and the consensus fidelium constitutes a sure criterion for recognising a particular teaching or practice as in accord with the apostolic Tradition.[82] The present chapter, therefore, turns to consider various aspects of the sensus fidei fidelium. It reflects, first of all, on the role of the latter in the development of Christian doctrine and practice; then on two relationships of great importance for the life and health of the Church, namely the relationship between the sensus fidei and the magisterium, and the relationship between the sensus fidei and theology; then, finally, on some ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei.

1. The sensus fidei and the development of Christian doctrine and practice

67. The whole Church, laity and hierarchy together, bears responsibility for and mediates in history the revelation which is contained in the holy Scriptures and in the living apostolic Tradition. The Second Vatican Council stated that the latter form ‘a single sacred deposit of the word of God’ which is ‘entrusted to the Church’, that is, ‘the entire holy people, united to its pastors’.[83] The council clearly taught that the faithful are not merely passive recipients of what the hierarchy teaches and theologians explain; rather, they are living and active subjects within the Church. In this context, it underscored the vital role played by all believers in the articulation and development of the faith: ‘the Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit’.[84]

a) Retrospective and prospective aspects of the sensus fidei

68. In order to understand how it functions and manifests itself in the life of the Church, the sensus fidei needs to be viewed within the context of history, a history in which the Holy Spirit makes each day a day to hear the voice of the Lord afresh (cf. Heb 3:7-15). The Good News of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is transmitted to the Church as a whole through the living apostolic Tradition, of which the Scriptures are the authoritative written witness. Hence, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who reminds the Church of all that Jesus said and did (cf. Jn 14:26), believers rely on the Scriptures and on the continuing apostolic Tradition in their life of faith and in the exercise of the sensus fidei.

69. However, faith and the sensus fidei are not only anchored in the past; they are also orientated towards the future. The communion of believers is a historical reality: ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone’, it ‘grows into a holy temple in the Lord’ (Eph 2:20-21), in the power of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church ‘into all the truth’ and declares to believers already now ‘the things that are to come’ (Jn 16:13), so that, especially in the Eucharist, the Church anticipates the return of the Lord and the coming of his kingdom (cf. 1Cor 11:26).

70. As she awaits the return of her Lord, the Church and her members are constantly confronted with new circumstances, with the progress of knowledge and culture, and with the challenges of human history, and they have to read the signs of the times, ‘to interpret them in the light of the divine Word’, and to discern how they may enable revealed truth itself to be ‘more deeply penetrated, better understood and more deeply presented’.[85] In this process, the sensus fidei fidelium has an essential role to play. It is not only reactive but also proactive and interactive, as the Church and all of its members make their pilgrim way in history. The sensus fidei is therefore not only retrospective but also prospective, and, though less familiar, the prospective and proactive aspects of the sensus fidei are highly important. The sensus fidei gives an intuition as to the right way forward amid the uncertainties and ambiguities of history, and a capacity to listen discerningly to what human culture and the progress of the sciences are saying. It animates the life of faith and guides authentic Christian action.

71. It can take a long time before this process of discernment comes to a conclusion. In the face of new circumstances, the faithful at large, pastors and theologians all have their respective roles to play, and patience and respect are needed in their mutual interactions if the sensus fidei is to be clarified and a true consensus fidelium, a conspiratio pastorum et fidelium, is to be achieved.

b) The contribution of the laity to the sensus fidelium

72. From the beginning of Christianity, all the faithful played an active role in the development of Christian belief. The whole community bore witness to the apostolic faith, and history shows that, when decisions about the faith needed to be taken, the witness of the laity was taken into consideration by the pastors. As has been seen in the historical survey above,[86] there is evidence that the laity played a major role in the coming into existence of various doctrinal definitions. Sometimes the people of God, and in particular the laity, intuitively felt in which direction the development of doctrine would go, even when theologians and bishops were divided on the issue. Sometimes there was a clear conspiratio pastorum et fidelium. Sometimes, when the Church came to a definition, the Ecclesia docens had clearly ‘consulted’ the faithful, and it pointed to the consensus fidelium as one of the arguments which legitimated the definition.

73. What is less well known, and generally receives less attention, is the role played by the laity with regard to the development of the moral teaching of the Church. It is therefore important to reflect also on the function played by the laity in discerning the Christian understanding of appropriate human behaviour in accordance with the Gospel. In certain areas, the teaching of the Church has developed as a result of lay people discovering the imperatives arising from new situations. The reflection of theologians, and then the judgment of the episcopal magisterium, was based on the Christian experience already clarified by the faithful intuition of lay people. Some examples might illustrate the role of the sensus fidelium in the development of moral doctrine:

i) Between canon 20 of the Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD), which forbade clerics and lay people to receive interest, and the response, Non esse inquietandos, of Pope Pius VIII to the bishop of Rennes (1830),[87] there is a clear development of teaching, due to both the emergence of a new awareness among lay people involved in business as well as new reflection on the part of theologians with regard to the nature of money.

ii) The openness of the Church towards social problems, especially manifest in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum (1896), was the fruit of a slow preparation in which lay ‘social pioneers’, activists as well as thinkers, played a major role.

iii) The striking albeit homogeneous development from the condemnation of ‘liberal’ theses in part 10 of the Syllabus of Errors (1864) of Pope Pius IX to the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), of Vatican II would not have been possible without the commitment of many Christians in the struggle for human rights.

The difficulty of discerning the authentic sensus fidelium in cases such as those above particularly indicates the need to identify dispositions required for authentic participation in the sensus fidei, dispositions which may serve, in turn, as criteria for discerning the authentic sensus fidei.[88]

2. The sensus fidei and the magisterium

a) The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium

74. In matters of faith the baptised cannot be passive. They have received the Spirit and are endowed as members of the body of the Lord with gifts and charisms ‘for the renewal and building up of the Church’,[89] so the magisterium has to be attentive to the sensus fidelium, the living voice of the people of God. Not only do they have the right to be heard, but their reaction to what is proposed as belonging to the faith of the Apostles must be taken very seriously, because it is by the Church as a whole that the apostolic faith is borne in the power of the Spirit. The magisterium does not have sole responsibility for it. The magisterium should therefore refer to the sense of faith of the Church as a whole. The sensus fidelium can be an important factor in the development of doctrine, and it follows that the magisterium needs means by which to consult the faithful.

75. The connection between the sensus fidelium and the magisterium is particularly to be found in the liturgy. The faithful are baptised into a royal priesthood, exercised principally in the Eucharist,[90] and the bishops are the ‘high priests’ who preside at the Eucharist,[91] regularly exercising there their teaching office, also. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of the Church;[92] it is there especially that the faithful and their pastors interact, as one body for one purpose, namely to give praise and glory to God. The Eucharist shapes and forms the sensus fidelium and contributes greatly to the formulation and refinement of verbal expressions of the faith, because it is there that the teaching of bishops and councils is ultimately ‘received’ by the faithful. From early Christian times, the Eucharist underpinned the formulation of the Church’s doctrine because there most of all was the mystery of faith encountered and celebrated, and the bishops who presided at the Eucharist of their local churches among their faithful people were those who gathered in councils to determine how best to express the faith in words and formulas: lex orandi, lex credendi.[93]

b) The magisterium nurtures, discerns and judges the sensus fidelium

76. The magisterium of those ‘who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth’[94] is a ministry of truth exercised in and for the Church, all of whose members have been anointed by the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn 2:20, 27), and endowed with the sensus fidei, an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. Being responsible for ensuring the fidelity of the Church as a whole to the word of God, and for keeping the people of God faithful to the Gospel, the magisterium is responsible for nurturing and educating the sensus fidelium. Of course, those who exercise the magisterium, namely the pope and the bishops, are themselves, first of all, baptised members of the people of God, who participate by that very fact in the sensus fidelium.

77. The magisterium also judges with authority whether opinions which are present among the people of God, and which may seem to be the sensus fidelium, actually correspond to the truth of the Tradition received from the Apostles. As Newman said: ‘the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides solely in the Ecclesia docens’.[95] Thus, judgement regarding the authenticity of the sensus fidelium belongs ultimately not to the faithful themselves nor to theology but to the magisterium. Nevertheless, as already emphasised, the faith which it serves is the faith of the Church, which lives in all of the faithful, so it is always within the communion life of the Church that the magisterium exercises its essential ministry of oversight.

c) Reception

78. ‘Reception’ may be described as a process by which, guided by the Spirit, the people of God recognises intuitions or insights and integrates them into the patterns and structures of its life and worship, accepting a new witness to the truth and corresponding forms of its expression, because it perceives them to be in accord with the apostolic Tradition. The process of reception is fundamental for the life and health of the Church as a pilgrim people journeying in history towards the fulness of God’s Kingdom.

79. All of the gifts of the Spirit, and in a special way the gift of primacy in the Church, are given so as to foster the unity of the Church in faith and communion,[96] and the reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful is itself prompted by the Spirit, as the faithful, by means of the sensus fidei that they possess, recognise the truth of what is taught and cling to it. As was explained above, the teaching of Vatican I that infallible definitions of the pope are irreformable ‘of themselves and not from the consent of the Church [ex sese non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]’[97] does not mean that the pope is cut off from the Church or that his teaching is independent of the faith of the Church.[98] The fact that prior to the infallible definitions both of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her bodily Assumption into heaven an extensive consultation of the faithful was carried out at the express wish of the pope at that time amply proves the point.[99] What is meant, rather, is that such teaching of the pope, and by extension all teaching of the pope and of the bishops, is authoritative in itself because of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the charisma veritatis certum, that they possess.

80. There are occasions, however, when the reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful meets with difficulty and resistance, and appropriate action on both sides is required in such situations. The faithful must reflect on the teaching that has been given, making every effort to understand and accept it. Resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the magisterium is incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei. The magisterium must likewise reflect on the teaching that has been given and consider whether it needs clarification or reformulation in order to communicate more effectively the essential message. These mutual efforts in times of difficulty themselves express the communion that is essential to the life of the Church, and likewise a yearning for the grace of the Spirit who guides the Church ‘into all the truth’ (Jn 16:13).

3. The sensus fidei and theology

81. As a service towards the understanding of faith, theology endeavours, amid the conspiratio of all the charisms and functions in the Church, to provide the Church with objective precision regarding the content of its faith, and it necessarily relies on the existence and correct exercise of the sensus fidelium. The latter is not just an object of attention for theologians, it constitutes a foundation and a locus for their work.[100] Theology itself, therefore, has a two-fold relationship to the sensus fidelium. On the one hand, theologians depend on the sensus fidei because the faith that they study and articulate lives in the people of God. In this sense, theology must place itself in the school of the sensus fidelium so as to discover there the profound resonances of the word of God. On the other hand, theologians help the faithful to express the authentic sensus fidelium by reminding them of the essential lines of faith, and helping them to avoid deviations and confusion caused by the influence of imaginative elements from elsewhere. This two-fold relationship needs some clarification, as in the following sections (a) and (b).

a) Theologians depend on the sensus fidelium

82. By placing itself in the school of the sensus fidelium, theology steeps itself in the reality of the apostolic Tradition which underlies and overflows the strict bounds of the statements in which the teaching of the Church is formulated, because it comprises ‘all that she herself is, all that she believes’.[101] In this regard, three particular considerations arise:

i) Theology should strive to detect the word which is growing like a seed in the earth of the lives of the people of God, and, having determined that a particular accent, desire or attitude does indeed come from the Spirit, and so corresponds to the sensus fidelium, it should integrate it into its research.

ii) By means of the sensus fidelium, the people of God intuitively senses what in a multitude of ideas and doctrines presented to it actually corresponds to the Gospel, and can therefore be received. Theology should apply itself carefully to investigating the various levels of reception that occur in the life of the people of God.

iii) The sensus fidelium both gives rise to and recognises the authenticity of the symbolic or mystical language often found in the liturgy and in popular religiosity. Aware of the manifestations of popular religiosity,[102] the theologian needs actually to participate in the life and liturgy of the local church, so as to be able to grasp in a deep way, not only with the head but also with the heart, the real context, historical and cultural, within which the Church and her members are striving to live their faith and bear witness to Christ in the world of today.

b) Theologians reflect on the sensus fidelium

83. Because the sensus fidelium is not simply identical to the opinion of the majority of the baptised at a given time, theology needs to provide principles and criteria for its discernment, particularly by the magisterium.[103] By critical means, theologians help to reveal and to clarify the content of the sensus fidelium, ‘recognising and demonstrating that issues relating to the truth of faith can be complex, and that investigation of them must be precise’.[104]In this perspective, theologians should also critically examine expressions of popular piety, new currents of thought and also new movements in the Church, for the sake of fidelity to the apostolic Tradition.[105] By so doing, theologians will help the discernment of whether, in a particular case, the Church is dealing with: a deviation caused by a crisis or a misunderstanding of the faith, an opinion which has a proper place in the pluralism of the Christian community without necessarily affecting others, or something so attuned to the faith that it ought to be recognised as an inspiration or a prompting of the Spirit.

84. Theology assists the sensus fidelium in another way, too. It helps the faithful to know with greater clarity and precision the authentic meaning of Scripture, the true significance of conciliar definitions, the proper contents of the Tradition, and also which questions remain open - for example, because of ambiguities in current affirmations, or because of cultural factors having left their mark on what has been handed on - and in which areas a revision of previous positions is needed. The sensus fidelium relies on a strong and sure understanding of the faith, such as theology seeks to promote.

4. Ecumenical aspects of the sensus fidei

85. The notions, sensus fidei, sensus fidelium, and consensus fidelium, have all been treated, or at least mentioned, in various international dialogues between the Catholic Church and other churches and ecclesial communities. Broadly speaking, there has been agreement in these dialogues that the whole body of the faithful, lay as well as ordained, bears responsibility for maintaining the Church’s apostolic faith and witness, and that each of the baptised, by reason of a divine anointing (1Jn 2:20, 27), has the capacity to discern the truth in matters of faith. There is also general agreement that certain members of the Church exercise a special responsibility of teaching and oversight, but always in collaboration with the rest of the faithful.[106]

86. Two particular questions related to the sensus fidelium arise in the context of the ecumenical dialogue to which the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed:[107]

i) Should only those doctrines which gain the common consent of all Christians be regarded as expressing the sensus fidelium and therefore as true and binding? This proposal goes counter to the Catholic Church’s faith and practice. By means of dialogue, Catholic theologians and those of other traditions seek to secure agreement on Church-dividing questions, but the Catholic participants cannot suspend their commitment to the Catholic Church’s own established doctrines.

ii) Should separated Christians be understood as participating in and contributing to the sensus fidelium in some manner? The answer here is undoubtedly in the affirmative.[108] The Catholic Church acknowledges that ‘many elements of sanctification and truth’ are to be found outside her own visible bounds,[109] that ‘certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasised’ in other communities,[110] and that ecumenical dialogue helps her to deepen and clarify her own understanding of the Gospel.

Chapter 4: How to discern authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei

87. The sensus fidei is essential to the life of the Church, and it is necessary now to consider how to discern and identify authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei. Such a discernment is particularly required in situations of tension when the authentic sensus fidei needs to be distinguished from expressions simply of popular opinion, particular interests or the spirit of the age. Recognising that the sensus fidei is an ecclesial reality in which individual believers participate, the first part of this chapter seeks to identify those characteristics which are required of the baptised if they are truly to be subjects of the sensus fidei, in other words, the dispositions necessary for believers to participate authentically in the sensus fidelium. The criteriology offered in the first part is then supplemented by consideration of the practical application of criteria with regard to the sensus fidei in the second part of the chapter. Part two considers three important topics: first, the close relationship between the sensus fidei and popular religiosity; then, the necessary distinction between the sensus fidei and public opinion inside or outside the Church; and, finally, the question of how to consult the faithful in matters of faith and morals.

1. Dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei

88. There is not one simple disposition, but rather a set of dispositions, influenced by ecclesial, spiritual, and ethical factors. No single one can be discussed in an isolated manner; its relationship to each and all of the others has to be taken into account. Only the most important dispositions for authentic participation in the sensus fidei are indicated below, drawn from biblical, historical and systematic investigation, and formulated so as to be useful in practical situations of discernment.

a) Participation in the life of the Church

89. The first and most fundamental disposition is active participation in the life of the Church. Formal membership of the Church is not enough. Participation in the life of the Church means constant prayer (cf. 1Thess 5:17), active participation in the liturgy, especially the Eucharist, regular reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, discernment and exercise of gifts and charisms received from the Holy Spirit, and active engagement in the Church’s mission and in her diakonia. It presumes an acceptance of the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals, a willingness to follow the commands of God, and courage both to correct one’s brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself.

90. There are countless ways in which such participation may occur, but what is common in all cases is an active solidarity with the Church, coming from the heart, a feeling of fellowship with other members of the faithful and with the Church as a whole, and an instinct thereby for what the needs of and dangers to the Church are. The necessary attitude is conveyed by the expression, sentire cum ecclesia, to feel, sense and perceive in harmony with the Church. This is required not just of theologians, but of all the faithful; it unites all the members of the people of God as they make their pilgrim journey. It is the key to their ‘walking together’.

91. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who participate in the life of the Church, knowing that ‘we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another’ (Rom 12:5).

b) Listening to the word of God

92. Authentic participation in the sensus fidei relies necessarily on a profound and attentive listening to the word of God. Because the Bible is the original testimony of the word of God, which is handed down from generation to generation in the community of faith,[111] coherence to Scripture and Tradition is the main indicator of such listening. The sensus fidei is the appreciation of the faith by which the people of God ‘receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God’.[112]

93. It is not at all required that all members of the people of God should study the Bible and the witnesses of Tradition in a scientific way. Rather, what is required is an attentive and receptive listening to the Scriptures in the liturgy, and a heartfelt response, ‘Thanks be to God’ and ‘Glory to you, Lord Jesus Christ’, an eager confession of the mystery of faith, and an ‘Amen’ which responds to the ‘Yes’ God has said to his people in Jesus Christ (2Cor 1:20). Participation in the liturgy is the key to participation in the living Tradition of the Church, and solidarity with the poor and needy opens the heart to recognise the presence and the voice of Christ (cf. Mt 25:31-46).

94. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who have ‘received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (1Thess 1:6).

c) Openness to reason

95. A fundamental disposition required for authentic participation in the sensus fidei is acceptance of the proper role of reason in relation to faith. Faith and reason belong together.[113] Jesus taught that God is to be loved not only ‘with all your heart, and with all your soul, … and with all your strength’, but also ‘with all your mind [nous]’ (Mk 12:30). Because there is only one God, there is only one truth, recognised from different points of view and in different ways by faith and by reason, respectively. Faith purifies reason and widens its scope, and reason purifies faith and clarifies its coherence.[114]

96. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who celebrate ‘reasonable worship’ and accept the proper role of reason illuminated by faith in their beliefs and practices. All the faithful are called to be ‘transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God - what is good and acceptable and perfect’ (Rom 12:1-2).

d) Adherence to the magisterium

97. A further disposition necessary for authentic participation in the sensus fidei is attentiveness to the magisterium of the Church, and a willingness to listen to the teaching of the pastors of the Church, as an act of freedom and deeply held conviction.[115] The magisterium is rooted in the mission of Jesus, and especially in his own teaching authority (cf. Mt 7:29). It is intrinsically related both to Scripture and Tradition; none of these three can ‘stand without the others’.[116]

98. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who heed the words of Jesus to the envoys he sends: ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me’ (Lk 10:16).

e) Holiness - humility, freedom and joy

99. Authentic participation in the sensus fidei requires holiness. Holiness is the vocation of the whole Church and of every believer.[117] To be holy fundamentally means to belong to God in Jesus Christ and in his Church, to be baptised and to live the faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Holiness is, indeed, participation in the life of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and it holds together love of God and love of neighbour, obedience to the will of God and engagement in favour of one’s fellow human beings. Such a life is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who is repeatedly invoked and received by Christians (cf. Rom 1:7-8, 11), particularly in the liturgy.

100. In the history of the Church, the saints are the light-bearers of the sensus fidei. Mary, Mother of God, the All-Holy (Panaghia), in her total acceptance of the word of God is the very model of faith and Mother of the Church.[118] Treasuring the words of Christ in her heart (Lk 2:51) and singing the praises of God’s work of salvation (Lk 1:46-55), she perfectly exemplifies the delight in God’s word and eagerness to proclaim the good news that the sensus fidei produces in the hearts of believers. In all succeeding generations, the gift of the Spirit to the Church has produced a rich harvest of holiness, and the full number of the saints is known only to God.[119] Those who are beatified and canonised stand as visible models of Christian faith and life. For the Church, Mary and all holy persons, with their prayer and their passion, are outstanding witnesses of the sensus fidei in their own time and for all times, in their own place and for all places.

101. Because it fundamentally requires an imitatio Christi (cf. Phil 2:5-8), holiness essentially involves humility. Such humility is the very opposite of uncertainty or timidity; it is an act of spiritual freedom. Therefore openness (parrhesia) after the pattern of Christ himself (cf. Jn 18:20) is connected with humility and a characteristic of the sensus fidei as well. The first place to practice humility is within the Church itself. It is not only a virtue of lay people in relation to their pastors, but also a duty of pastors themselves in the exercise of their ministry for the Church. Jesus taught the twelve: ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all’ (Mk 9:35). Humility is lived by habitually acknowledging the truth of faith, the ministry of pastors, and the needs of the faithful, especially the weakest.

102. A true indicator of holiness is ‘peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 14:17; cf. 1Thess 1:6). These are gifts manifested primarily on a spiritual, not a psychological or emotional, level, namely, the peace of heart and quiet joy of the person who has found the treasure of salvation, the pearl of great price (cf. Mt 13:44-46). Peace and joy are, indeed, two of the most characteristic fruits of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22). It is the Holy Spirit who moves the heart and turns it to God, ‘opening the eyes of the mind and giving “joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it [omnibus suavitatem in consentiendo et credendo veritati]”’.[120] Joy is the opposite of the bitterness and wrath that grieve the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:31), and is the hallmark of salvation.[121] St Peter urges Christians to rejoice in sharing Christ’s sufferings, ‘so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed’ (1Pet 4:13).

103. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who hear and respond to the urging of St Paul: ‘make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind’. ‘Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves’ (Phil 2:2-3).

f) Seeking the edification of the Church

104. An authentic manifestation of the sensus fidei contributes to the edification of the Church as one body, and does not foster division and particularism within her. In the first letter to the Corinthians, the very essence of participation in the life and mission of the Church is such edification (cf. 1Cor 14). Edification means building up the Church both in the inner consciousness of its faith and in terms of new members, who want to be baptised into the faith of the Church. The Church is the house of God, a holy temple, made up of the faithful who have received the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor 3:10-17). To build the Church means seeking to discover and develop one’s own gifts and helping others to discover and develop their charisms, too, correcting their failures, and accepting correction oneself, in a spirit of Christian charity, working with others and praying with them, sharing their joys and sorrows (cf. 1Cor 12:12, 26).

105. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who reflect what St Paul says to the Corinthians: ‘To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (1Cor 12:7).

2. Applications

106. Discussion of dispositions appropriate to the sensus fidei needs to be supplemented with consideration of some important practical and pastoral questions, regarding, in particular, the relationship between the sensus fidei and popular religiosity; the necessary distinction between the sensus fidei, on the one hand, and public or majority opinion, on the other; and how to consult the faithful in matters of faith and morals. These points will now be considered in turn.

a) The sensus fidei and popular religiosity

107. There is a ‘religiosity’ that is natural for human beings; religious questions naturally arise in every human life, prompting a vast diversity of religious beliefs and popular practices, and the phenomenon of popular religiosity has been the object of much attention and study in recent times.[122]

108. ‘Popular religiosity’ also has a more specific usage, namely in reference to the great variety of manifestations of Christian belief found among the people of God in the Church, or, rather, to refer to ‘the Catholic wisdom of the people’ that finds expression in such a multitude of ways. That wisdom ‘creatively combines the divine and the human, Christ and Mary, spirit and body, communion and institution, person and community, faith and homeland, intelligence and emotion’, and is also for the people ‘a principle of discernment and an evangelical instinct through which they spontaneously sense when the Gospel is served in the Church and when it is emptied of its content and stifled by other interests’.[123] As such a wisdom, principle and instinct, popular religiosity is clearly very closely related to the sensus fidei, and needs to be considered carefully within the framework of the present study.

109. The words of Jesus, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants’ (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21), are highly relevant in this context. They indicate the wisdom and insight into the things of God that is given to those of humble faith. Vast multitudes of humble Christian believers (and indeed of people beyond the visible bounds of the Church) have privileged access, at least potentially, to the deep truths of God. Popular religiosity arises in particular from the knowledge of God vouchsafed to such people. It is ‘the manifestation of a theological life nourished by the working of the Holy Spirit who has been poured into our hearts (cf. Rom 5:5)’.[124]

110. Both as a principle or instinct and as a rich abundance of Christian practice, especially in the form of cultic activities, e.g. devotions, pilgrimages and processions, popular religiosity springs from and makes manifest the sensus fidei, and is to be respected and fostered. It needs to be recognised that popular piety, in particular, is ‘the first and most fundamental form of faith’s “inculturation”’.[125] Such piety is ‘an ecclesial reality prompted and guided by the Holy Spirit’,[126] by whom the people of God are indeed anointed as a ‘holy priesthood’. It is natural for the priesthood of the people to find expression in a multitude of ways.

111. The priestly activity of the people rightly has its high point in the liturgy, and care must be taken to ensure that popular devotions ‘accord with the sacred liturgy’.[127] More generally, as Pope Paul VI taught, since it is in danger of being penetrated ‘by many distortions of religion and even superstitions’, popular religiosity needs to be evangelised.[128] However, when carefully tended in this way, and ‘well oriented’, it is, he said, ‘rich in values’. ‘It manifests a thirst for God which only the simple and poor can know. It makes people capable of generosity and sacrifice even to the point of heroism, when it is a question of manifesting belief. It involves an acute awareness of profound attributes of God: fatherhood, providence, living and constant presence. It engenders interior attitudes rarely observed to the same degree elsewhere: patience, the sense of the Cross in daily life, detachment, openness to others, devotion…. When it is well oriented, this popular religiosity can be more and more for multitudes of our people a true encounter with God in Jesus Christ.’[129] In admiring the elderly woman’s statement,[130] Pope Francis was echoing the esteem expressed here by Pope Paul. Once again, well oriented popular religiosity, both in its insight into the deep mysteries of the Gospel and in its courageous witness of faith, can be seen as a manifestation and expression of the sensus fidei.

112. It may be said that popular religiosity is ‘well oriented’ when it is truly ‘ecclesial’. Pope Paul indicated in the same text certain criteria for ecclesiality. Being ecclesial means being nourished by the Word of God, not being politicised or trapped by ideologies, remaining strongly in communion with both the local church and the universal Church, with the Church’s pastors and with the magisterium, and being fervently missionary.[131] These criteria indicate conditions required for the authenticity both of popular religiosity and of the sensus fidei that underlies it. In their authentic form, as the final criterion indicates, both are great resources for the Church’s mission. Pope Francis highlights the ‘missionary power’ of popular piety, and in what can be seen as a reference to the sensus fidei, states that ‘underlying popular piety’ there is likewise ‘an active evangelising power which we must not underestimate: to do so would be to fail to recognise the work of the Holy Spirit’.[132]

b) The sensus fidei and public opinion

113. One of the most delicate topics is the relationship between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion both inside and outside the Church. Public opinion is a sociological concept, which applies first of all to political societies. The emergence of public opinion is linked to the birth and development of the political model of representative democracy. In so far as political power gains its legitimacy from the people, the latter must make known their thoughts, and political power must take account of them in the exercise of government. Public opinion is therefore essential to the healthy functioning of democratic life, and it is important that it be enlightened and informed in a competent and honest manner. That is the role of the mass media, which thus contribute greatly to the common good of society, as long as they do not seek to manipulate opinion in favour of particular interests.

114. The Church appreciates the high human and moral values espoused by democracy, but she herself is not structured according to the principles of a secular political society. The Church, the mystery of the communion of humanity with God, receives her constitution from Christ. It is from him that she receives her internal structure and her principles of government. Public opinion cannot, therefore, play in the Church the determinative role that it legitimately plays in the political societies that rely on the principle of popular sovereignty, though it does have a proper role in the Church, as we shall seek to clarify below.

115. The mass media comment frequently on religious affairs. Public interest in matters of faith is a good sign, and the freedom of the press is a basic human right. The Catholic Church is not afraid of discussion or controversy regarding her teaching. On the contrary, she welcomes debate as a manifestation of religious freedom. Everyone is free either to criticise or to support her. Indeed, she recognises that fair and constructive critique can help her to see problems more clearly and to find better solutions. She herself, in turn, is free to criticise unfair attacks, and needs access to the media in order to defend the faith if necessary. She values invitations from independent media to contribute to public debates. She does not want a monopoly of information, but appreciates the plurality and interchange of opinions. She also, however, knows the importance of informing society about the true meaning and content both of her faith and of her moral teaching.

116. The voices of lay people are heard much more frequently now in the Church, sometimes with conservative and sometimes with progressive positions, but generally participating constructively in the life and the mission of the Church. The huge development of society by education has had considerable impact on relations within the Church. The Church herself is engaged worldwide in educational programmes aimed at giving people their own voice and their own rights. It is therefore a good sign if many people today are interested in the teaching, the liturgy and the service of the Church. Many members of the Church want to exercise their own competence, and to participate in their own proper way in the life of the Church. They organise themselves within parishes and in various groups and movements to build up the Church and to influence society at large, and they seek contact via social media with other believers and with people of good will.

117. The new networks of communication both inside and outside the Church call for new forms of attention and critique, and the renewal of skills of discernment. There are influences from special interest groups which are not compatible, or not fully so, with the Catholic faith; there are convictions which are only applicable to a certain place or time; and there are pressures to lessen the role of faith in public debate or to accommodate traditional Christian doctrine to modern concerns and opinions.

118. It is clear that there can be no simple identification between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion. These are by no means the same thing.

i) First of all, the sensus fidei is obviously related to faith, and faith is a gift not necessarily possessed by all people, so the sensus fidei can certainly not be likened to public opinion in society at large. Then also, while Christian faith is, of course, the primary factor uniting members of the Church, many different influences combine to shape the views of Christians living in the modern world. As the above discussion of dispositions implicitly shows, the sensus fidei cannot simply be identified, therefore, with public or majority opinion in the Church, either. Faith, not opinion, is the necessary focus of attention. Opinion is often just an expression, frequently changeable and transient, of the mood or desires of a certain group or culture, whereas faith is the echo of the one Gospel which is valid for all places and times.

ii) In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith. The Old Testament knew the ‘holy remnant’ of believers, sometimes very few in number, over against the kings and priests and most of the Israelites. Christianity itself started as a small minority, blamed and persecuted by public authorities. In the history of the Church, evangelical movements such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, or later the Jesuits, started as small groups treated with suspicion by various bishops and theologians. In many countries today, Christians are under strong pressure from other religions or secular ideologies to neglect the truth of faith and weaken the boundaries of ecclesial community. It is therefore particularly important to discern and listen to the voices of the ‘little ones who believe’ (Mk 9:42).

119. It is undoubtedly necessary to distinguish between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion, hence the need to identify dispositions necessary for participation in the sensus fidei, such as those elaborated above. Nevertheless, it is the whole people of God which, in its inner unity, confesses and lives the true faith. The magisterium and theology must work constantly to renew the presentation of the faith in different situations, confronting if necessary dominant notions of Christian truth with the actual truth of the Gospel, but it must be recalled that the experience of the Church shows that sometimes the truth of the faith has been conserved not by the efforts of theologians or the teaching of the majority of bishops but in the hearts of believers.

c) Ways of consulting the faithful

120. There is a genuine equality of dignity among all the faithful, because through their baptism they are all reborn in Christ. ‘Because of this equality they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to the building up of the Body of Christ.’[133] Therefore, all the faithful ‘have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church’. ‘They have the right to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reference to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.’[134] Accordingly, the faithful, and specifically the lay people, should be treated by the Church’s pastors with respect and consideration, and consulted in an appropriate way for the good of the Church.

121. The word ‘consult’ includes the idea of seeking a judgment or advice as well as inquiring into a matter of fact. On the one hand, in matters of governance and pastoral issues, the pastors of the Church can and should consult the faithful in certain cases in the sense of asking for their advice or their judgment. On the other hand, when the magisterium is defining a doctrine, it is appropriate to consult the faithful in the sense of inquiring into a matter of fact, ‘because the body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and because their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church’.[135]

122. The practice of consulting the faithful is not new in the life of the Church. In the medieval Church a principle of Roman law was used: Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (what affects everyone, should be discussed and approved by all). In the three domains of the life of the Church (faith, sacraments, governance), ‘tradition combined a hierarchical structure with a concrete regime of association and agreement’, and this was considered to be an ‘apostolic practice’ or an ‘apostolic tradition’.[136]

123. Problems arise when the majority of the faithful remain indifferent to doctrinal or moral decisions taken by the magisterium or when they positively reject them. This lack of reception may indicate a weakness or a lack of faith on the part of the people of God, caused by an insufficiently critical embrace of contemporary culture. But in some cases it may indicate that certain decisions have been taken by those in authority without due consideration of the experience and the sensus fidei of the faithful, or without sufficient consultation of the faithful by the magisterium.[137]

124. It is only natural that there should be a constant communication and regular dialogue on practical issues and matters of faith and morals between members of the Church. Public opinion is an important form of that communication in the Church. ‘Since the Church is a living body, she needs public opinion in order to sustain a giving and taking between her members. Without this, she cannot advance in thought and action.’[138] This endorsement of a public exchange of thought and opinions in the Church was given soon after Vatican II, precisely on the basis of the council’s teaching on the sensus fidei and on Christian love, and the faithful were strongly encouraged to take an active part in that public exchange. ‘Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds which stems from a “feeling for the faith” [i.e. the sensus fidei] and from love. It stems from that feeling for the faith which is aroused and nourished by the spirit of truth in order that, under the guidance of the teaching Church which they accept with reverence, the People of God may cling unswervingly to the faith given to the early Church, with true judgement penetrate its meaning more deeply, and apply it more fully in their lives [Lumen Gentium, 12]. This freedom also stems from love. For it is with love that … the People of God are raised to an intimate sharing in the freedom of Christ Himself, who cleansed us from our sins, in order that we might be able freely to make judgements in accordance with the will of God. Those who exercise authority in the Church will take care to ensure that there is responsible exchange of freely held and expressed opinion among the People of God. More than this, they will set up norms and conditions for this to take place.’[139]

125. Such public exchange of opinion is a prime means by which, in a normal way, the sensus fidelium can be gauged. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, various institutional instruments by which the faithful may more formally be heard and consulted have been established, such as particular councils, to which priests and others of Christ’s faithful may be invited,[140] diocesan synods, to which the diocesan bishop may also invite lay people as members,[141] the pastoral council of each diocese, which is ‘composed of members of Christ’s faithful who are in full communion with the Catholic Church: clerics, members of institutes of consecrated life, and especially lay people’,[142] and pastoral councils in parishes, in which ‘Christ’s faithful, together with those who by virtue of their office are engaged in pastoral care in the parish, give their help in fostering pastoral action’.[143]

126. Structures of consultation such as those mentioned above can be greatly beneficial to the Church, but only if pastors and lay people are mutually respectful of one another’s charisms and if they carefully and continually listen to one another’s experiences and concerns. Humble listening at all levels and proper consultation of those concerned are integral aspects of a living and lively Church.


Conclusion

127. Vatican II was a new Pentecost,[144] equipping the Church for the new evangelisation that popes since the council have called for. The council gave a renewed emphasis to the traditional idea that all of the baptised have a sensus fidei, and the sensus fidei constitutes a most important resource for the new evangelisation.[145] By means of the sensus fidei, the faithful are able not only to recognise what is in accordance with the Gospel and to reject what is contrary to it, but also to sense what Pope Francis has called ‘new ways for the journey’ in faith of the whole pilgrim people. One of the reasons why bishops and priests need to be close to their people on the journey and to walk with them is precisely so as to recognise ‘new ways’ as they are sensed by the people.[146] The discernment of such new ways, opened up and illumined by the Holy Spirit, will be vital for the new evangelisation.

128. The sensus fidei is closely related to the ‘infallibilitas in credendo’ that the Church as a whole has as a believing ‘subject’ making its pilgrim way in history.[147] Sustained by the Holy Spirit, it enables the witness that the Church gives and the discernment that the members of the Church must constantly make, both as individuals and as a community, of how best to live and act and speak in fidelity to the Lord. It is the instinct by which each and all ‘think with the Church’,[148] sharing one faith and one purpose. It is what unites pastors and people, and makes dialogue between them, based on their respective gifts and callings, both essential and fruitful for the Church.


[1] Pope Francis, Angelus address, 17 March, 2013.

[2] Cf. Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (2013), nn.119-120.

[3] Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from the documents of the Second Vatican Council are taken from Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II, new revised edition (Northport, NY/Dublin: Costello Publishing Company/Dominican Publications, 1996). The following council documents will be identified as shown: Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA), Ad Gentes (AG), Dei Verbum (DV), Gaudium et Spes (GS), Lumen Gentium (LG), Perfectae Caritatis (PC), Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). References to Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 38th ed., edited by Peter Hünermann (1999), are indicated by DH together with the paragraph number; references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) are indicated by CCC together with the paragraph number; and references to J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina (1844-1864) are indicated by PL together with the volume and column numbers.

[4] In its document on The Interpretation of Dogma (1989), the International Theological Commission (ITC) spoke of the ‘sensus fidelium’ as an ‘inner sense’ by means of which the people of God ‘recognise in preaching that the words are God’s not man's and accept and guard them with unbreakable fidelity’ (C, II, 1). The document also highlighted the role played by the consensus fidelium in the interpretation of dogma (C, II, 4).

[5] In its recent document entitled Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria (2012), the ITC identified the sensus fidei as a fundamental locus or reference point for theology (n.35).

[6] Theology Today, §13.

[7] Tertullian, De oratione, I, 6; Corpus Christianorum, series latina (hereafter CCSL), 1, p.258.

[8] Yves M.-J. Congar identifies various doctrinal questions in which the sensus fidelium was used in Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1953), 450-53; ET: Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of Lay People (London: Chapman, 1965), Appendix II: The ‘Sensus Fidelium’ in the Fathers, 465-67.

[9] Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, 21 and 28, CCSL 1, pp.202-203 and 209.

[10] Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum, XIV, 27 (PL 44, 980). He says this with reference to the canonicity of the book of Wisdom.

[11] Augustine, Contra epistolam Parmeniani, III, 24 (PL 43, 101). Cf. De baptismo, IV, xxiv, 31 (PL 43, 174) (with regard to the baptism of infants): ‘Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, nonnisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur’.

[12] Cassian, De incarnatione Christi, I, 6 (PL 50, 29-30): ‘Sufficere ergo solus nunc ad confutandum haeresim deberet consensus omnium, quia indubitatae veritatis manifestatio est auctoritas universorum’.

[13] Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium II, 5 (CCSL, 64, p.149).

[14] Jerome, Adversus Vigilantium 5 (CCSL 79C, p.11-13).

[15] Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion haereticorum, 78, 6; Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Epiphanius, Bd 3, p.456.

[16] Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, XX, 3 (CCSL 36, p.204); Ennaratio in psalmum 120, 7 (PL 37, 1611).

[17] John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, edited with an introduction by John Coulson (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1961), pp.75-101; at 75 and 77. See also his The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833; 3rd ed. 1871). Congar expresses some caution with regard to the use of Newman’s analysis of this matter; see, Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.395; ET: Lay People in the Church, pp.285-6.

[18] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.104.

[19] See DH 1000.

[20] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.70.

[21] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.9, s.c.; IIIa, q.83, a.5, s.c. (with regard to the liturgy of the Mass); Quodl. IX, q.8 (with regard to canonisation). Cf. also Bonaventure, Commentaria in IV librum Sententiarum, d.4, p.2, dub. 2 (Opera omnia, vol.4, Quaracchi, 1889, p.105): ‘[Fides Ecclesiae militantis] quamvis possit deficere in aliquibus personis specialiter, generaliter tamen numquam deficit nec deficiet, iuxta illud Matthaei ultimo: “Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consumationem saeculi”’; d.18, p.2, a. un. q.4 (p.490). In Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.2, a.6, ad 3, St Thomas links this indefectibility of the universal Church to Jesus’ promise to Peter that his faith would not fail (Lk 22:32).

[22] Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.10; q.11, a.2, ad 3.

[23] See Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praecludium, WA 6, 566-567, and John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, IV, 8, 11; the promises of Christ are found in Mt 28:19 and Jn 14: 16, 17.

[24] See Gustav Thils, L’Infaillibilité du Peuple chrétien ‘in credendo’: Notes de théologie post-tridentine (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963).

[25] DH 1637; see also, DH 1726. For equivalent expressions, see Yves M.-J. Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II. Essai théologique (Paris: Fayard, 1963), pp.82-83; ET, Tradition and Traditions (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 315-17.

[26] De locis theologicis, ed. Juan Belda Plans (Madrid, 2006). Cano lists ten loci: Sacra Scriptura, traditiones Christi et apostolorum, Ecclesia Catholica, Concilia, Ecclesia Romana, sancti veteres, theologi scholastici, ratio naturalis, philosophi, humana historia.

[27] De locis theol., Bk. IV, ch. 3 (Plans ed., p.117). ‘Si quidquam est nunc in Ecclesia communi fidelium consensione probatum, quod tamen humana potestas efficere non potuit, id ex apostolorum traditione necessario derivatum est.’

[28] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (pp.144-46).

[29] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (p.149): ‘Non solum Ecclesia universalis, id est, collectio omnium fidelium hunc veritatis spiritum semper habet, sed eundem habent etiam Ecclesiae principes et pastores’. In Book VI, Cano affirms the authority of the Roman pontiff when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra.

[30] De locis theol., Bk. I, ch. 4 (pp.150-51): ‘Priores itaque conclusiones illud astruebant, quicquid ecclesia, hoc est, omnium fidelium concio teneret, id verum esse. Haec autem illud affirmat pastores ecclesiae doctores in fide errare non posse, sed quicquid fidelem populum docent, quod ad Christi fidem attineat, esse verissimum.’

[31] Robert Bellarmine, De controversiis christianae fidei (Venice, 1721), II, I, lib.3, cap.14: ‘Et cum dicimus Ecclesiam non posse errare, id intelligimus tam de universitate fidelium quam de universitate Episcoporum, ita ut sensus sit eius propositionis, ecclesia non potest errare, idest, id quod tenent omnes fideles tanquam de fide, necessario est verum et de fide; et similiter id quod docent omnes Episcopi tanquam ad fidem pertinens, necessario est verum et de fide’ (p.73).

[32] De controversiis II, I, lib.2, cap.2: ‘Concilium generale repraesentat Ecclesiam universam, et proinde consensum habet Ecclesiae universalis; quare si Ecclesia non potest errare, neque Concilium oecumenicum, legitimum et approbatum, potest errare’ (p.28).

[33] J. A. Möhler, Die Einheit in der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus [1825], ed. J. R. Geiselmann (Cologne and Olten: Jakob Hegner, 1957), 8ff., 50ff.

[34] J. A. Möhler, Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten, nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften [1832], ed. J.R. Geiselmann (Cologne and Olten: Jakob Hegner, 1958), §38. Against the Protestant principle of private interpretation, he reasserted the significance of the judgment of the whole Church.

[35] In 1847, Newman met Perrone and they discussed Newman’s ideas about the development of doctrine. Newman used the notion of the sensus ecclesiae in this context. Cf. T. Lynch, ed., ‘The Newman-Perrone Paper on Development’, Gregorianum 16 (1935), pp.402-447, esp. ch.3, nn.2, 5.

[36] Ioannis Perrone, De Immaculato B. V. Mariae Conceptu an Dogmatico Decreto definiri possit (Romae, 1847), 139, 143-145. Perrone concluded that the Christian faithful would be ‘deeply scandalised’ if Mary’s Immaculate Conception were ‘even mildly questioned’ (p.156). He found other instances in which the magisterium relied on the sensus fidelium for its doctrinal definitions, e.g. the doctrine that the souls of the just enjoy the beatific vision already prior to the resurrection of the dead (pp.147-148).

[37] See Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Letter, Ubi primum (1849), n.6.

[38] Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus (1854).

[39] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, pp.70-71.

[40] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63, cf. p.65. Newman usually distinguishes the ‘pastors’ and the ‘faithful’. Sometimes he adds the ‘doctors’ (theologians) as a distinct class of witnesses, and he includes the lower clergy among the ‘faithful’ unless he specifies the ‘lay faithful’.

[41] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.104.

[42] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, pp.64-70; cf. above, §37.

[43] Mansi, III (51), 542-543. It asserts that the Church’s infallibility extends to all revealed truth, in Scripture and in Tradition - i.e., to the Deposit of Faith - and to whatever is necessary for defending and preserving it, even though not revealed.

[44] Mansi, IV (52), 1213-14.

[45] Ibid., 1217. Gasser adds: ‘sed talis casus non potest statui pro regula’.

[46] DH 3074. One of the ‘Four Articles’ of the Gallican position asserted that the Pope’s judgment ‘is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church be given to it’.

[47] See Gasser, in Mansi, 52, 1213-14.

[48] The condemned proposition reads: ‘The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning”’ (DH 3406).

[49] Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[50] Munificentissimus Deus, n.41

[51] Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[52] See Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, chapter 6. The scheme is found in the Preface of the third edition of Newman’s Via Media (1877).

[53] Congar, Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.398; ET, Lay People in the Church, 288.

[54] Jalons pour une Théologie du Laïcat, p.399; ET, Lay People in the Church, 289.

[55] LG 4.

[56] LG 12. In several other places, the council refers to the ‘sense’ of believers or of the Church in a way analogous to the sensus fidei of LG 12. It refers to the sensus Ecclesiae (DV 23), sensus apostolicus (AA 25), sensus catholicus (AA 30), sensus Christi et Ecclesiae and sensus communionis cum Ecclesia (AG 19), sensus christianus fidelium (GS 52), and to an integer christianus sensus (GS 62).

[57] LG 35.

[58] DV 8.

[59] DV 10; cf. Ineffabilis Deus, n.18, and Munificentissimus Deus, n.12.

[60] See, e.g., Pope John Paul II’s teaching in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici (1988), that all the faithful share in Christ’s threefold office, and his reference to the laity being ‘sharers in the appreciation of the Church’s supernatural faith (sensum fidei supernaturalis Ecclesiae) that “cannot err in matters of belief” [LG 12]’ (n.14); also, with reference to the teaching of LG 12, 35, and DV 8, the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), n.2.

[61] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1981), n.5. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis (1990), the CDF cautioned against identifying ‘the opinion of a large number of Christians’ with the sensus fidei: the sensus fidei is ‘a property of theological faith’ and a gift of God which enables a Christian ‘to adhere personally to the Truth’, so that what he or she believes is what the Church believes. Since not all the opinions held by believers spring from faith, and since many people are swayed by public opinion, it is necessary to emphasise, as the council did, the ‘indissoluble bond between the “sensus fidei” and the guidance of God’s People by the Magisterium of the Pastors’ (n.35).

[62] The sensus fidei fidelis presupposes in the believer the virtue of faith. In fact, it is the lived experience of faith which enables the believer to discern whether a doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith or not. It is therefore only rather broadly and derivatively that the discernment necessary for the initial act of faith can be attributed to the sensus fidei fidelis.

[63] CCC 1804.

[64] Vatican II, PC 12.

[65] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.45, a.2.

[66] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.4, ad 3. Cf. IIa-IIae, q.2, a.3, ad 2.

[67] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.23, q.3, a.3, qla 2, ad 2: ‘Habitus fidei cum non rationi innitatur, inclinat per modum naturae, sicut et habitus moralium virtutum, et sicut habitus principiorum; et ideo quamdiu manet, nihil contra fidem credit.’

[68] Cf. J. A. Möhler, Symbolik, §38: ‘Der göttliche Geist, welchem die Leitung und Belebung der Kirche anvertraut ist, wird in seiner Vereinigung mit dem menschlichen ein eigenthümlich christlicher Tact, ein tiefes, sicher führendes Gefühl, das, wie er in der Wahrheit steht, auch aller Wahrheit entgegenleitet.’

[69] Because of its immediate relationship to its object, instinct does not err. In itself, it is infallible. However, animal instinct is infallible only within the context of a determined environment. When the context changes, animal instinct can show itself to be maladjusted. Spiritual instinct, on the other hand, has more scope and subtlety.

[70] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.1, a.3, ad 3.

[71] CDF, Donum Veritatis, n.35.

[72] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.2, a.5-8.

[73] LG 15.

[74] Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super Ioannis evangelium, c.14, lect.4 (Marietti, n.1916).

[75] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §§91-92.

[76] DV 8. In the theology of the gifts of the Spirit that St Thomas developed, it is particularly the gift of knowledge that perfects the sensus fidei fidelis as an aptitude to discern what is to be believed. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.9, a.1 co. et ad 2.

[77] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q.14, a.10, ad 10; cf. Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 2, ad 3.

[78] Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 4, ad 3: ‘[The believer] must not give assent to a prelate who preaches against the faith…. The subordinate is not totally excused by his ignorance. In fact, the habitus of faith inclines him against such preaching because that habitus necessarily teaches whatever leads to salvation. Also, because one must not give credence too easily to every spirit, one should not give assent to strange preaching but should seek further information or simply entrust oneself to God without seeking to venture into the secrets of God beyond one’s capacities.’

[79] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 2, ad 3; Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q.14, a.11, ad 2.

[80] See above, §30.

[81] See Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, pp.81-101, on ‘L’“Ecclesia”, sujet de la Tradition’, and pp.101-108, on ‘Le Saint-Esprit, Sujet transcendant de la Tradition’; ET, Tradition and Traditions, pp.314-338, on ‘The “Ecclesia” as the Subject of Tradition’, and pp.338-346, on ‘The Holy Spirit, the Transcendent Subject of Tradition’.

[82] See above, §3.

[83] DV 10 (amended translation).

[84] DV 8; cf. also, LG 12, 37; AA 2, 3; GS 43.

[85] GS 44 (amended translation).

[86] See above, Chapter One, part 2.

[87] Cf. DH 2722-2724.

[88] See below, Chapter Four.

[89] LG 12.

[90] Cf. LG 10, 34.

[91] Cf. LG 21, 26; SC 41.

[92] Cf. SC 10; LG 11.

[93] CCC 1124. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer., IV, 18, 5 (Sources chrétiennes, vol.100, p.610): ‘Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking’ (see also CCC, n.1327).

[94] DV 8.

[95] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63.

[96] Cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, DH 3051.

[97] Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch.4 (DH 3074).

[98] See above, §40.

[99] See above, §§38, 42.

[100] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §35.

[101] DV 8.

[102] See below, §§107-112.

[103] See below, Chapter Four.

[104] ITC, Theology Today, §35; cf. CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis (1990), nn.2-5, 6-7.

[105] Cf. Theology Today, §35.

[106] Particularly notable in this regard are the indicated sections of the following agreed statements: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority (2007; the Ravenna Statement), n.7; Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Gift of Authority (1999), n.29; Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 1977-1984, Report, chapter 1.3; Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue, The Church as Communion in Christ (1992), nn.40, 45; International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, The Word of Life (1995), nn.56, 58.

[107] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint (1995), n.3.

[108] See above, §56.

[109] Cf. LG 8.

[110] Ut Unum Sint, n.14; cf. nn.28, 57, where Pope John Paul refers to the ‘exchange of gifts’ that occurs in ecumenical dialogue. In its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, Communionis Notio (1992), the CDF similarly acknowledges that the Catholic Church is herself ‘injured’ by the loss of communion with the other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities (n.17).

[111] Cf. LG 12; DV 8.

[112] LG 12, with reference to 1Thess 2:13.

[113] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (1998).

[114] Cf. ITC, Theology Today, §§63, 64, 84.

[115] See above, §§74-80.

[116] DV 10.

[117] Cf. LG, chapter 5, on ‘The universal vocation to holiness in the Church’.

[118] CCC 963.

[119] Cf. GS 11, 22.

[120] DV 5 (amended translation).

[121] Cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.5.

[122] Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines (2001), n.10: ‘“Popular religiosity” refers to a universal experience: there is always a religious dimension in the hearts of people, nations, and their collective expressions. All peoples tend to give expression to their totalising view of the transcendent, their concept of nature, society, and history through cultic means. Such characteristic syntheses are of major spiritual and human importance.’

[123] CELAM, Third General Conference (Puebla, 1979), Final Document, n.448, as quoted in CCC 1676.

[124] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.125.

[125] Joseph Ratzinger, Commento teologico, in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Il messaggio di Fatima (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 2000), p.35; as quoted in CDWDS, Directory, n.91.

[126] CDWDS, Directory, n.50.

[127] SC 13.

[128] Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), n.48. Congar referred to ‘engouements douteux et dévotions aberrantes’, and cautioned: ‘On se gardera de trop attribuer au sensus fidelium: non seulement au regard des prérogatives de la hiérarchie …, mais en soi’ (Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat, p.399; ET, Lay People in the Church, p.288).

[129] Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), n.48. In his discourse at the opening of CELAM’s fourth general conference (Santo Domingo, 12 October 1992), Pope John Paul said that, with its ‘essentially catholic roots’, popular religiosity in Latin America was ‘an antidote against the sects and a guarantee of fidelity to the message of salvation’ (n.12). With reference to the Final Document of the Third General Conference of CELAM, Pope Francis states that, when the Christian faith is truly inculturated, ‘popular piety’ is an important part of the process by which ‘a people continuously evangelises itself’ (Evangelii Gaudium, n.122).

[130] See above, §2.

[131] Cf. Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, n.58; with reference to the need to ensure that communautés de base were truly ecclesial.

[132] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.126.

[133] Code of Canon Law, can.208.

[134] Code of Canon Law, can.212, §3.

[135] Newman, On Consulting the Faithful, p.63; for the double meaning of the word ‘consult’, see pp.54-55.

[136] Y. Congar, ‘Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet’, in Revue historique de droit français et étranger 36(1958), pp.210-259, ptic. pp.224-228.

[137] See above, §§78-80.

[138] Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication written by Order of the Second Vatican Council, ‘Communio et Progressio’ (1971), n.115, which also cites Pope Pius XII: ‘Something would be lacking in [the Church’s] life if she had no public opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this’ (Allocution, 17 February 1950, AAS XVIII[1950], p.256).

[139] ‘Communio et Progressio’, n.116.

[140] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can.443, §4.

[141] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can.463, §2.

[142] Code of Canon Law, can.512, §1.

[143] Code of Canon Law, can.536, §1.

[144] This was a phrase repeatedly used by Pope John XXIII when he expressed his hopes and prayers for the coming council; see, e.g., Apostolic Constitution, Humanae Salutis (1961), n.23.

[145] Cf. above, §§2, 45, 65, 70, 112.

[146] Cf. Pope Francis, Address to clergy, persons in consecrated life and members of pastoral councils, San Rufino, Assisi, 4 October 2013. The pope added that diocesan synods, particular celebrations of ‘walking together’ as disciples of the Lord, need to take account of ‘what the Holy Spirit is saying to the laity, to the people of God, [and] to all’.

[147] Interview with Pope Francis by Fr Antonio Spadaro, 21 September 2013; cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.119.

[148] Interview with Pope Francis by Fr Antonio Spadaro; cf. above, §90.

top

Article 0

$
0
0
THE BLESSING OF AN ICON OF CHRIST
at Belmont Abbey, Hereford.


The Blessing by Fr Brendan, assisted by Br Alex (the iconographer)
Fr Brendan is Welsh.   Br Alex is Peruvian.



This address was given by Br Alex Echeandia at Belmont (on the right of the photo above).   He is a monk of our monastery here in Pachacamac on the outskirts of Lima and has been studying Theology with the Dominicans at Blackfriars, Oxford, and Iconography under Aidan Hart, an Orthodox artist of icons.   He will be rejoining us in Peru in September and will be ordained priest on October 18th, the feast of St Luke, patron saint of iconographers.   Please pray for him.

 Christ Pantocrátor of Belmont  



This finished icon at the abbey that Fr Dyfrig started. In fact I used his drafts in order to produce what you see here in the Church. The type Fr Dyfrig used was based on the Christ Pantocrator, Saviour and Giver of Life, from a Greek origin at the end of the XIV century, which is placed now in the Museum of Macedonia, Yugoslavia.  That at the same time was base, as any other icon of Christ Pantocrator, on the one from Sinai. We may explain soon later about the characteristic of this particular icon.

Before we start explaining the meaning of symbolism in this icon, let start by saying what and icon is. Etymologically, an icon is translated from the Greek as “image”. Therefore, this icon of Christ is per excellence the icon of God, the Image of the Father. The reason why we make icons is because God became man. As Irenaeus said, the Word become one of us in order that we may become like Him. Therefore, images of Our Lady and the Saints find their prototype in Christ, the Image of God Invisible. We find here in the Abbey church a lot of images of Christ, saints and angels, quite a lot I may say. They are made from stone, glass, wood or other materials. The reason why we make these images is because of the Incarnation. Iconoclasts and other people who based their understanding in the Old Testament don’t consider the turning point of our faith, that God became man in Christ.

A sacred icon in particular comes to people in three ways. First, as any other work of art, the icon attracts your eyes by the beauty it offers. As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, beauty will conquer the world. It is through beauty that our minds and heart are attracted. We say that a piece of music is beautiful and a work of art is also beautiful. The eyes and ears are the most sensitive senses we have. Therefore, images need to offer something of beauty to attract our attention.

However, and icon is not simply a work of art. It offers a profound spiritual richness that comes by contemplating it. As iconogrpahers we are called to be simply and instrument of the Holy Spirit. This is why we don’t put our names on top of the image represented. We are not the authors. We believe that it is Christ and His mother, and saints who come to us in order to be represented. I am sure you have heard of an icon functioning as a window through which the saint comes to the viewer. However, one may say that the icon word as a door through which we can encounter God, Our Lady and the Saints and they can encounter us. We can journey into the mystery by contemplating an icon. This is what the faithful, especially among the Eastern Churches, believe that is happening. This is why an icon is always flat because is a direct relation with the viewer.  

The third way in which an icon is seen by the faithful is by a theological perspective. The First Council of the Church at Nicaea confirmed that Christ is the visible and perfect Image of the Father. However, during the following centuries the Church struggled against heresies related to Christ’s two natures, either denying the divine nature (Arians) or the human nature (monophysites). Finally at Chalcedon it was declared that Christ was fully human and fully divine, and He Himself embodied the union of two natures human and divine. This icon of Christ, God-Man, is a graphic expression of the dogma of Chalcedon, for it represents the Divine Person incarnated, the Son of God became the Son of Man, Divine as the Father and human like us.

The icon of Christ the Pantocrator become a very important key to understand this relationship of Christ as fully human and fully divine. In this light, Jesus as the image of God Invisible, God-Man, was also relevant in the iconoclast period, by arguing that through the Incarnation images of God and His saints are possible in the Church.

As said in the beginning, icons of Christ Pantocrator we see now go back to the one in Sinai. In fact, the oldest example of this kind is the sixth century icon in the Monastery of St Catherine in the Sinai desert. The well-known Icon of “Christ of Sinai” was probably written at Constantinople, using the encaustic technique. This technique consisted in mixing wax with pigment and applying the mixture on the wooden panel already covered with gesso. The wax medium was replaced in later centuries by the yolk of eggs, a technique seen in icons nowadays. This encaustic technique came originally from Egypt. Examples can be seen in the portraits made for the mummies. One may go to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford or the National Gallery in London, and appreciate the images placed on top of the mammies with the portrayals which represented the person inside the sarcophagus. The same technique is used in the image of Christ Pantocrator at the museum of St Catherine´s Monastery, Sinai.

The word Pantocrator comes from a composed word Panto-crator. The word “panto” is the genitive of pantos (all), meaning “of all”, and “crator” (power, rule) is the participle present of “cratos” which means ruler, the one in power. It is also interpreted as the One who embraces the whole of humanity, the One who maintains all things. The Icon of Christ Pantocrator we see here at the Abbey Church shows facial characteristics of the adult Jesus. It expresses the reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God, the True Image of the Father that The Gospel of John proclaims in the prologue. The image of God Invisible that become one of us. St Ireneus said, “The Son of God become the Son of Man, so that man might become son of God.” Jesus Christ is the Image of the Father revealed to us for our salvation. Therefore, the Image of Christ Pantocrator is the image per excellence that gives meaning to all images.

This icon as well as all the sacred icons are embedded of theological symbolism. As said before, the viewer can admire from it in the basic level the beauty that capture our attention. Secondly, the icon introduces to the one who contemplates it to the relation with the person depicted, to Christ, Our Mother, and all the Saints in a close relationship. In this way, the icon works as a door rather than a window because through a window one can look through and the those depicted can come to us as well. However, seen the icon as a door, one can go through as well as the saint can come to us, and the relationship becomes more personal.

Going through the explanation, one may start with the powerful background of the icon. It is  is real gold. This half-length image of Christ is envolved in light represented by the gold. Images of Christ in this formed are founded in the ninth century Psalters, particularly placed near the words: “Shine on us, Lord, the light of your face”. Moreover, one of the oldest Russian icons of this type (XII and XIII century) called the Saviour with Golden Hear in the Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow, Christ is called King of Glory, as the inscription tells us. Therefore, gold is not defined by a particular colour, but contains all the colours as it acts by the reflection of the light. It recalls the divine light that shines through the icon and tells us that we are encountering the divine.

The image that is surrounded by the gold is simple and almost symmetrical, the face is compact with a certain softness and appears brighter. Nevertheless, the wide-open, asimetrical eyes gaze beyond the confines of place and time. Christ´s left eye is bigger that the other, and his left eyebrow is raised higher that the other. It offers the identity of God: justice and mercy. They are composed in a way that become harmonious, as the Psalm 85:10: “righteousness and peace kiss each other.”  In this monumental an imposing image of Christ there is a close relationship with biblical reproaches and prophetic exhortations addressed in the Church by means of preaching and teaching. We hear God in the Scriptures: “Cease to do evil and learn to do good.” This biblical severity and directness is represented in Jesus’ left-side face. Christ is presented as King and Heavenly Judge. He indeed rules with justice. In fact, the big, open eyes give a theological message, he who created the world never sleeps, but rather watches over it and saves it.  As the Psalm 12 says, the Lord will keep your going and coming now and for ever.

Basically, icons try to answer the question of Who Jesus is. As it is seen in the two sides of the face, Jesus Christ appears as the Revelation of God. Christ is seen as the merciful face of the Father. Christ said, “He that sees me, sees Him who sent me” (John 12:45). Jesus Pantocrator expresses the strength and authority of God. Christ the Judge is tempered by the Saviour’s merciful face. “You are the fairest of the children of men” (Psalm 45). In Christ, justice and mercy, truth and peace, are reconciled. This is the relation of a divine humanity.  Christ is at once Lord of the universe and the prototype of a transfigured humanity. The iconographic type of Christ-Pantocrator expresses under the human features of the Incarnate Son, the Divine Majesty of the Creator and Redeemer, who presides over the destiny of the world.

That strength and majesty is also seen in the nose and neck. The long, narrow and straight nose underscores a firmness of will and mind. The small, closed mouth stand for silence and inner strength. The thick neck expresses the fullness of the breath of the Holy Spirit. The beard is a fine filigree shading the face. High forehead, uneven eyebrows, the well-marked lines of the eyebrows, moustache expresses a strong sense of pity and loving judgement of the world. It shows a transfigured flesh of Him who suffered for us. The thick, gathered hair frames the face, then falls in loose braids onto the left shoulder, suggesting a slight turn of the shoulders and recalls the tree strands which place it its centre the face of our Lord. As a tree it suggests paradise, and symbolises Jesus as the Tree of Life and the New Adam. The large detailed eyes, turned towards the onlooker, have an attentive and saddened look which seems to penetrate the depths of consciences. Christ is come into the world not to condemn, but to save it (John 3). The flesh tones, like in the Icon of Sinai, is a result of a perfect balance between naturalism and mystical transfiguration; it is, the richness of His humanity and divinity.  

The halo bears the mark of the cross and the letters O, Ω, N (omicron, omega and nu) stand for the holy name revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai; “I am that I am”, “The Being”, “The One that is. Christ is God that comes to meet his people. Moreover, on the same gold the name of Jesus Christ abbreviated is place in Greek. The abridged name of Jesus Christ IC XC (above, on our icon) designates the person of the Incarnate Son. A name in an icon makes it a proper icon; it gives its identity.  Therefore, it is obligatory for inscriptions of the name to appear on all icons of Christ, of the Mother of God, and all the saints.

Christ Pantocrator is shown holding the Gospel Book in his left hand. The Book of the Gospel symbolises the new law given to humankind , as well as the “Book of Life” mentioned in the Apocalypse (Rev 4). It is adorned with precious blue and red stones. Moreover, Christ´s right hand is in a position of blessing the world. The fingers of the hand are gathered two symbolise Christ’s two natures.  The ring finger and thumb are united to symbolize the two natures of Jesus Christ, which only Him has obtained. Jesus is truly human and truly divine, the heavenly world has met the human world in Jesus.

He wears a green cloak and a red tunic, aspects of Christ´s two natures, human and divine. Text about God’s humanity and divinity by Pope Leo the Great: If you want to know who are you, look not to what you have been, but to the image that God had I creating you. In Him there is all His godliness, and all our humanity.”

As we can see, the theme of Jesus´s identity goes through the whole icon and teaches the faithful about Jesus Christ, Son of God. Thus, the icon becomes first of all a door where God and His saints encounter His people by the beauty it offers and by the teaching about Divine Mystery. If we approach to icons with faith a bit of that mystery will be revealed to the one who contemplates it, in order approach to God, not simply with the mind and the theological teaching it offer, but more profoundly with the eye of the heart that transports the viewer into God Himself.

Finally, I want to thank for the expressions of charity and care given by those who contributed to this icons. I know many people gave a lot of gold leaves and other materials to finish the works that began time ago, from the drafts Fr Dyfrig had. It was very sad to see him depart from us bodily by the sudden death two years ago. We know now that he is very pleased by the acts of love everybody have shown to the point that today this icon has been blest. Now this icon of Christ Pantocrator of Belmont together with the other icon of Our Lady of Tenderness will be used to our prayer and a place of encounter with our Lord and God and all His Saints.

The Blessing and Hallowing of the Christ Pantocrator Icon

Celebrant:

Blessed is our God always, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages: All: Amen.

Deacon and Celebrant:Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. (3) Glory to you, our God, glory to you. Heavenly King, Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who are present everywhere filling all things, Treasury of good things and Giver of life, come and 
dwell in us. Cleanse us of every stain, and save our souls, gracious Lord.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us (3). Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. 

All holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, forgive our sins. Master, pardon our transgressions. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for the sake of your name. 

Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. 
Lord, have mercy. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

All: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but 
deliver us from evil.

Priest: For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.

All: Amen. Kyrie eleison. (3) O come, let us worship and fall down, let us kneel before the Lord who made us.

Priest: Good Father,Lover of the human race, we praise you for the great love shown us.   In the sending of your Word.    Born of the Blessed Virgin, He became our Saviour, our first born brother, like us in all things but sin.

You have given us Christ as the perfect example of holiness: 
We see him as a child in the manger, yet acknowledge him as God almighty. 
We see his face and discern the countenance of his goodness.
We hear him speak the words of life and are filled with Your wisdom. 
We search the deepest reaches of his heart and our own hearts.

Burn with that fire of the Spirit which spread in order to renew the face of the earth.

We look on the Bridegroom of the Church, streaked in his own blood, but we revere that blood which washes our sins away.

The Church rejoices in the glory of his resurrection and shares in the promise it holds, the life that Animates our actions. 
May Christ be a light to all who see this image in this place, may he draw all men and women to himself and be a place of rest on their journey. 
May he be the gate that opens to all the City of Peace, for he lives there reigning with you and Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. 
Amen

Sprinkling cross fashion the Icon with Holy Water, he says:

Hallowed and blessed is this Icon of Christ Pantocrator, Ruler of All, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, through the sprinkling of holy water: 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Immediately is sung the Troparion and Kontakion of Christ Pantocrator.

Blessing: God and Father, when your Son took flesh he assumed our human nature so that we can participate in your heavenly glory, may the Your Image, Our Lord Jesus Pantocrator, make us worthy to witness the revelations of your mysteries, and praying before this icon we can encounter You, Our Blessed Mother and all your saints, until we see 
you face to face.“ R. Amen

Those who wish can reverence and kiss the holy Icon.

We sing the Phos Hilaron (Φῶς Ἱλαρόν, 3rd/4th Century hymn)

O gracious light. Lord Jesus Christ,
In you the Father's glory shone.
Immortal, holy, blest is he,
And blest are you his only Son.
Now sunset comes, but light shines forth,
The lamps are lit to pierce the night.
Praise Father, Son, and Spirit, God
Who dwells in the eternal light.
Worthy are you of endless praise,
O Son of God, life-giving Lord;
Wherefore you are, through all the earth

And in the highest heaven, adored.

IMAGO DEI : Christ Pantocrator Icon at Belmont Abbey

POPE FRANCIS AND THE EVANGELICALS br Father Dwight Longenecker

$
0
0


Earlier this year, Pope Francis met with an old acquaintance named Tony Palmer. Palmer, who died tragically in a motorcycle accident last week, was a South African who lived in England. Married to a Catholic Italian, Palmer met the pope when he was a missionary in Argentina.

Palmer claimed the title “Anglican Bishop” but he was not a bishop in the established Church of England. Instead it is more accurate to say that he was a bishop in the “Anglican tradition.” Part of a new evangelical church movement which treasures tradition as well as charismatic worship and Evangelical zeal, Palmer was a good representative of a Christian movement that is sometimes called “convergence church.”

The “convergence church” can best be described as a para-church fellowship that is Evangelical, Charismatic, and Catholic. In other words, they embrace and endorse the best of these three Christian traditions. Without an organized structure or denominational bureaucracy, convergence church members move across denominational, national, and traditional boundaries. Loosely knit and forming alliances among sympathetic Christians in many denominations, they are often bright, zealous, positive, and pro-active in their Christian ministry.

With an emphasis on a simple gospel message, they also appreciate liturgical worship, practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a profound love of the Sacred Scriptures. The convergence church Christians sit lightly towards established denominations of all kinds and aim to preach and live a basic, radical Christianity.

If we want to understand Pope Francis as a reformer, it is his appreciation of this new breed of Evangelicals which may shed most light on him as a person and the aims of his papacy. It is interesting to observe that the pope has maintained cordial relationships with the leaders of the established Protestant denominations like Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but when he meets with his Evangelical friends he invites them for breakfast or lunch, and sits around with them laughing, talking, and enjoying fellowship for hours.

Those who see Pope Francis as a reformer should see in his relationships with the Evangelicals what the heart of his reform is all about. It is not simply an attempt to clean up the Vatican bank or sweep the church clean of pedophiles. It is not simply the symbolism of living in the St. Martha Hostel, eating in the cafeteria, and riding in a modest car. His planned reform is far more radical than that. He actually wants Catholics to follow Jesus Christ in a joyful, radical and earth shaking manner.

Francis’ appreciation of the Evangelicals is therefore more than a cordial attempt to reach out to Christians who have always been marginalized by the Catholic Church and who, truth be told, have usually been harshly anti-Catholic. His appreciation of the Evangelicals is more than an attempt to stem the tide of Catholics to the charismatic churches across the globe. Instead he genuinely admires them and, in many ways, wants Catholics to be more like them.

Does that mean Catholics have to be more happy clappy in worship, speak in tongues, and embrace a watered down, utilitarian Calvinism? Does Francis want to Protestantize the Catholic Church? By no means. I think he wants Catholics not to be more Protestant, but more Catholic. In other words, he wants Catholics to return to the zeal and passion of the saints and martyrs. He wants Catholics to re-learn the simple life of the apostles and take joy in the most elemental levels of the faith -- a life full of the Holy Spirit in a day to day relationship with Jesus Christ.


Pope Francis's friendship with the Evangelicals is also an exciting and innovative direction for ecumenism. I believe Francis realizes that unity with the mainstream Protestant churches is a lost cause. He knows the Anglicans and other mainstream Protestant churches are on a divergent path from Catholicism and that when two paths diverge they can only grow further apart. Locked into a commitment to reductionist theology, an egalitarian progressive agenda, and radical relativism, he sees them as unreliable and unpredictable ecumenical partners.

The Charismatic Evangelicals, on the other hand, for all their historic anti-Catholicism, genuinely believe the historic Christian faith. They believe the Bible, the essentials of the creeds and they believe Jesus is alive in the world today through the power of the Holy Spirit. They might be extreme, but Francis realizes the world needs a radical form of Christianity. He also realizes that the extremes are often closer to one another than the watered down versions of the faith.

As such, he would agree with C.S. Lewis, who put it this way when asked about church re-union: “It seems to me that the ‘extreme’ elements in every Church are nearest one another, and the liberal people in each Body could never be united at all. The world of dogmatic Christianity is a place in which thousands of people of quite different types keep on saying the same thing, and the world of ‘broad minded’ or ‘watered down' Christianity is a world where a small number of people (all of the same type) say totally different things and change their minds every few minutes. We shall never get re-union from them.”


Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the author of The Romance of Religion: Fighting for Goodness, Truth, and Beauty.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ST SERAPHIM

$
0
0


This is the second time we have published this post; but I decided to do so in preparation for tomorrow's post on "THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ST SERAPHIM AND THE STIGMATA OF ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI". This, together with "WHERE EAST AND WEST MEET: IN THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS" (CLICK TITLE) , demonstrate that, even when there are later western developments, like the stigmata of St Francis and devotion to the Sacred Heart, these  fundamentally complement the more ancient, patristic spirituality of the Orthodox Church and share identical roots in our common Tradition of sharing in the Christian Mystery.  I believe that this is an objective fact, and can only be denied by giving a false interpretation of what the other side believes and practises.

   I also acknowledge that those Orthodox who believe that Grace is only found in the Orthodox Communion can only falsify evidence of sanctity in the Catholic Church because accepting it would be proof positive that their theology of salvation and of the Church is inadequate.  They project their understanding of the Catholic Church onto what they see, and thus falsify the evidence.

In the theology of the Church as a universal society, held together by papal jurisdiction,   Tradition is the handing down of understandings, beliefs, doctrines, chiefly expressed by popes and general councils.   "I am Tradition," Pope Pius IX is supposed to have said.  If, however, you hold that Tradition is derived from the celebration of liturgy where the Holy Spirit and the Church acts in synergy, as in a eucharistic ecclesiology, then it is first encountered in local liturgical traditions, in different forms, and only takes on a world-wide formulation when this is necessary for Christian unity.   Thus, Tradition takes shape, for the most part, in different ways, as the different liturgical families bear witness. , Nevertheless, there is an inner coherence between these forms that show us the presence of the Holy Spirit.

 However, when one form of Tradition claims to be the only authentic one, and formulates its faith in such a way as to exclude the others, then the formulation is inadequate, even when it is true as far as it goes.   Both the Catholic West and the Orthodox East are guilty of considering only their version of Tradition as authentic.   The ecumenical way takes seriously the other versions, knowing that they too come out of the celebration of the liturgy and of living the Christian life, even when formulations clash.   We look for the coherence, for the identity behind the difference.

"ST. SERAPHIM'S TRANSFIGURATION IN THE HOLY SPIRIT".
 Conversation with Motovilov

 "But how," I asked Father Seraphim, "can I know that I am in the grace of the Holy Spirit?""It is very simple, your Godliness," he replied. "That is why the Lord says: All things are simple to those who find knowledge (Prov. 8:9, Septuagint). The trouble is that we do not seek this divine knowledge which does not puff up, for it is not of this world. This knowledge which is full of love for God and for our neighbour builds up every man for his salvation. Of this knowledge the Lord said that God wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). And of the lack of this knowledge He said to His Apostles: Are you also yet without understanding (Mat. 15:16)? Concerning this understanding [15], it is said in the Gospel of the Apostles: Then opened He their understanding (Lk. 24:45), and the Apostles always perceived whether the Spirit of God was dwelling in them or not; and being filled with understanding, they saw the presence of the Holy Spirit with them and declared positively that their work was holy and entirely pleasing to the Lord God. That explains why in their Epistles they wrote: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28). Only on these grounds did they offer their Epistles as immutable truth for the benefit of all the faithful. Thus the holy Apostles were consciously aware of the presence in themselves of the Spirit of God. And so you see, your Godliness, how simple it is!"

 "Nevertheless," I replied, "I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?" Father Seraphim replied: "I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want, my son?""I want to understand it well," I said. 

Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?" I replied: "I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain." Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am." Then, bending his head towards me, he whispered softly in my ear: "Thank the Lord God for His unutterable mercy to us! You saw that I did not even cross myself; and only in my heart I prayed mentally to the Lord God and said within myself: 'Lord, grant him to see clearly with his bodily eyes that descent of Thy Spirit which Thou grantest to Thy servants when Thou art pleased to appear in the light of Thy magnificent glory.' And you see, my son, the Lord instantly fulfilled the humble prayer of poor Seraphim. How then shall we not thank Him for this unspeakable gift to us both? Even to the greatest hermits, my son, the Lord God does not always show His mercy in this way. This grace of God, like a loving mother, has been pleased to comfort your contrite heart at the intercession of the Mother of God herself. But why, my son, do you not look me in the eyes? Just look, and don't be afraid! The Lord is with us!" 

After these words I glanced at his face and there came over me an even greater reverent awe. Imagine in the center of the sun, in the dazzling light of its midday rays, the face of a man talking to you. You see the movement of his lips and the changing expression of his eyes, you hear his voice, you feel someone holding your shoulders; yet you do not see his hands, you do not even see yourself or his figure, but only a blinding light spreading far around for several yards and illumining with its glaring sheen both the snow-blanket which covered the forest glade and the snow-flakes which besprinkled me and the great Elder. You can imagine the state I was in! 

"How do you feel now?" Father Seraphim asked me. "Extraordinarily well," I said. "But in what way? How exactly do you feel well?" I answered: "I feel such calmness and peace in my soul that no words can express it.""This, your Godliness," said Father Seraphim, "is that peace of which the Lord said to His disciples: My peace I give unto you; not as the world gives, give I unto you (Jn. 14:21). If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (Jn. 15:19). But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (Jn. 16:33). And to those people whom this world hates but who are chosen by the Lord, the Lord gives that peace which you now feel within you, the peace which, in the words of the Apostle, passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7). The Apostle describes it in this way, because it is impossible to express in words the spiritual well-being which it produces in those into whose hearts the Lord God has infused it. Christ the Saviour calls it a peace which comes from His own generosity and is not of this world, for no temporary earthly prosperity can give it to the human heart; it is granted from on high by the Lord God Himself, and that is why it is called the peace of God. What else do you feel?" Father Seraphim asked me. "An extraordinary sweetness," I replied. And he continued: "This is that sweetness of which it is said in Holy Scripture: They will be inebriated with the fatness of Thy house; and Thou shalt make them drink of the torrent of Thy delight (Ps. 35:8) [16]. And now this sweetness is flooding our hearts and coursing through our veins with unutterable delight. From this sweetness our hearts melt as it were, and both of us are filled with such happiness as tongue cannot tell. What else do you feel?""An extraordinary joy in all my heart." And Father Seraphim continued: "When the Spirit of God comes down to man and overshadows him with the fullness of His inspiration [17], then the human soul overflows with unspeakable joy, for the Spirit of God fills with joy whatever He touches. This is that joy of which the Lord speaks in His Gospel: A woman when she is in travail has sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she is delivered of the child, she remembers no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. In the world you will be sorrowful [18]; but when I see you again, your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you (Jn. 16:21-22). Yet however comforting may be this joy which you now feel in your heart, it is nothing in comparison with that of which the Lord Himself by the mouth of His Apostle said that that joy eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for them that love Him (I Cor. 2:9). Foretastes of that joy are given to us now, and if they fill our souls with such sweetness, well-being and happiness, what shall we say of that joy which has been prepared in heaven for those who weep here on earth? And you, my son, have wept enough in your life on earth; yet see with what joy the Lord consoles you even in this life! Now it is up to us, my son, to add labours to labours in order to go from strength to strength (Ps. 83:7), and to come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), so that the words of the Lord may be fulfilled in us: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall grow wings like eagles; and they shall run and not be weary (Is. 40:31); they will go from strength to strength, and the God of gods will appear to them in the Sion (Ps. 83:8) of realization and heavenly visions. Only then will our present joy (which now visits us little and briefly) appear in all its fullness, and no one will take it from us, for we shall be filled to overflowing with inexplicable heavenly delights. What else do you feel, your Godliness?" I answered: "An extraordinary warmth.""How can you feel warmth, my son? Look, we are sitting in the forest. It is winter out-of-doors, and snow is underfoot. There is more than an inch of snow on us, and the snowflakes are still falling. What warmth can there be?" I answered: "Such as there is in a bath-house when the water is poured on the stone and the steam rises in clouds.""And the smell?" he asked me. "Is it the same as in the bathhouse?""No," I replied. "There is nothing on earth like this fragrance. When in my dear mother's lifetime I was fond of dancing and used to go to balls and parties, my mother would sprinkle me with scent which she bought at the best shops in Kazan. But those scents did not exhale such fragrance." And Father Seraphim, smiling pleasantly, said: "I know it myself just as well as you do, my son, but I am asking you on purpose to see whether you feel it in the same way. It is absolutely true, your Godliness! The sweetest earthly fragrance cannot be compared with the fragrance which we now feel, for we are now enveloped in the fragrance of the Holy Spirit of God. What on earth can be like it? Mark, your Godliness, you have told me that around us it is warm as in a bath-house; but look, neither on you nor on me does the snow melt, nor does it underfoot; therefore, this warmth is not in the air but in us. It is that very warmth about which the Holy Spirit in the words of prayer makes us cry to the Lord: 'Warm me with the warmth of Thy Holy Spirit!' By it the hermits of both sexes were kept warm and did not fear the winter frost, being clad, as in fur coats, in the grace-given clothing woven by the Holy Spirit. And so it must be in actual fact, for the grace of God must dwell within us, in our heart, because the Lord said: The Kingdom of God is within you (Lk. 17:21).

 By the Kingdom of God the Lord meant the grace of the Holy Spirit. This Kingdom of God is now within us, and the grace of the Holy Spirit shines upon us and warms us from without as well. It fills the surrounding air with many fragrant odours, sweetens our senses with heavenly delight and floods our hearts with unutterable joy. Our present state is that of which the Apostle says; The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Our faith consists not in the plausible words of earthly wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power (cp. I Cor.2:4). That is just the state that we are in now. Of this state the Lord said: There are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God come in power (Mk. 9:1). See, my son, what unspeakable joy the Lord God has now granted us! This is what it means to be in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, about which St. Macarius of Egypt writes: 'I myself was in the fullness of the Holy Spirit.' With this fullness of His Holy Spirit the Lord has now filled us poor creatures to overflowing. So there is no need now, your Godliness, to ask how people come to be in the grace of the Holy Spirit. 

Will you remember this manifestation of God's ineffable mercy which has visited us?""I don't know, Father," I said, "whether the Lord will grant me to remember this mercy of God always as vividly and clearly as I feel it now.""I think," Father Seraphim answered me, "that the Lord will help you to retain it in your memory forever, or His goodness would never have instantly bowed in this way to my humble prayer and so quickly anticipated the request of poor Seraphim; all the more so, because it is not given to you alone to understand it, but through you it is for the whole world, in order that you yourself may be confirmed in God's work and may be useful to others. 

The fact that I am a Monk and you are a layman is utterly beside the point. What God requires is true faith in Himself and His Only-begotten Son. In return for that the grace of the Holy Spirit is granted abundantly from on high. The Lord seeks a heart filled to overflowing with love for God and our neighbour; this is the throne on which He loves to sit and on which He appears in the fullness of His heavenly glory. 'Son, give Me thy heart,' He says, 'and all the rest I Myself will add to thee (Prov. 23:26; Matt. 6:33),' for in the human heart the Kingdom of God can be contained. The Lord commanded His disciples: Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things (Mat. 6:32,33). The Lord does not rebuke us for using earthly goods, for He says Himself that, owing to the conditions of our earthly life, we need all these things; that is, all the things which make our human life more peaceful and make our way to our heavenly home lighter and easier. That is why the holy Apostle Paul said that in his opinion there was nothing better on earth than piety and sufficiency (cp. II Cor.9:8; I Tim.6:6). And Holy Church prays that this may be granted us by the Lord God; and though troubles, misfortunes and various needs are inseparable from our life on earth, yet the Lord God neither willed nor wills that we should have nothing but troubles and adversities. Therefore, He commands us through the Apostles to bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). The Lord Jesus personally gives us the commandment to love one another, so that, by consoling one another with mutual love, we may lighten the sorrowful and narrow way of our journey to the heavenly country.

 Why did He descend to us from heaven, if not for the purpose of taking upon Himself our poverty and of making us rich with the riches of His goodness and His unutterable generosity? He did not come to be served by men but to serve them Himself and to give His life for the salvation of many. You do the same, your Godliness, and having seen the mercy of God manifestly shown to you, tell of it to all who desire salvation. The harvest truly is great, says the Lord, but the labourers are few (Lk. 10:2). The Lord God has led us out to work and has given us the gifts of His grace in order that, by reaping the ears of the salvation of our fellow-men and bringing as many as possible into the Kingdom of God, we may bring Him fruit—some thirty fold, some sixty fold and some a hundredfold. Let us be watchful, my son, in order that we may not be condemned with that wicked and slothful servant who hid his talent in the earth, but let us try to imitate those good and faithful servants of the Lord who brought their Master four talents instead of two, and ten instead of five (Cf. Mat. 25:14-30). 

"Of the mercy of the Lord God there is no shadow of doubt. You have seen for yourself, your Godliness, how the words of the Lord spoken through the Prophet have been accomplished in us: I am not a God far off, but a God near at hand (cp. Jer. 23:23), and thy salvation is at thy mouth (cp. Deut. 30:12-14; Rom. 10:8-13). I had not time even to cross myself, but only wished in my heart that the Lord would grant you to see His goodness in all its fullness, and He was pleased to hasten to realise my wish. I am not boasting when I say this, neither do I say it to show you my importance and lead you to jealousy, or to make you think that I am a Monk and you only a layman. No, no, your Godliness! The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him in truth (Ps. 144:18) and there is no partiality with Him (Eph. 6:9). For the Father loves the Son and gives everything into His hand (cp. Jn. 3:35). If only we ourselves loved Him, our heavenly Father, in a truly filial way! The Lord listens equally to the Monk and the simple Christian layman provided that both are Orthodox believers, and both love God from the depth of their souls, and both have faith in Him, if only as a grain of mustard seed; and they both shall move mountains. 'One shall move thousands and two tens of thousands' (cp. Deut. 32:30). The Lord Himself says: All things are possible to him who believes (Mk. 9:23). And the holy Apostle Paul loudly exclaims: I can do all things in Christ Who strengthens me (Phil. 4:13). But does not our Lord Jesus Christ speak even more wonderfully than this of those who believe in Him: He who believes in Me, not only the works that I do, but even greater then these shall he do, because I am going to My Father. And I will pray for you that your joy may be full. Hitherto you have asked nothing in My name. But now ask... (Jn. 14:12,16; 16:24). "Thus, my son, whatever you ask of the Lord God you will receive, if only it is for the glory of God or for the good of your neighbour, because what we do for the good of our neighbour He refers to His own glory. And therefore He says: "All that you have done unto one of the least of these, you have done unto Me" (cp. Matt. 25:40). And so, have no doubt that the Lord God will fulfill your petitions, if only they concern the glory of God or the benefit and edification of your fellow men. But, even if something is necessary for your own need or use or advantage, just as quickly and graciously will the Lord be pleased to send you even that, provided that extreme need and necessity require it. For the Lord loves those who love Him. The Lord is good to all men; He gives abundantly to those who call upon His Name, and His bounty is in all His works. He will do the will of them that fear Him and He will hear their prayer, and fulfill all their plans. The Lord will fulfill all thy petitions (cp. Ps. 144:19; 19:4,5). Only beware, your Godliness, of asking the Lord for something for which there is no urgent need. The Lord will not refuse you even this in return for your Orthodox faith in Christ the Saviour, for the Lord will not give up the staff of the righteous to the lot of sinners (cf. Ps. 124:3), and He will speedily accomplish the will of His servant David; but He will call him to account for having troubled Him without special need, and for having asked Him for something without which he could have managed very easily.

 "And so, your Godliness, I have now told you and given you a practical demonstration of all that the Lord and the Mother of God have been pleased to tell you and show you through me, poor Seraphim. Now go in peace. The Lord and the Mother of God be with you always, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. Now go in peace." And during the whole of this time, from the moment when Father Seraphim's face became radiant [19], this illumination continued; and all that he told me from the beginning of the narrative till now, he said while remaining in one and the same position. The ineffable glow of the light which emanated from him I myself saw with my own eyes. And I am ready to vouch for it with an oath.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ST SERAPHIM COMPARED WITH THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE OF ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI ON MOUNT

$
0
0

On this subject we find that there is a type of Orthodox writing that is characterised by an anti-Catholicism so strong that it becomes an intricate part of the very hermeneutic they use to interpret evidence.   Here is a good example from the Orthodox Information Center.   As far as I can see, it is anonymous, which was, perhaps, wise of the author.
Studying the biographical data of Francis of Assisi, a fact of the utmost interest concerning the mysticism of this Roman Catholic ascetic is the appearance of stigmata on his person. Roman Catholics regard such a striking manifestation as the seal of the Holy Spirit. In Francis' case, these stigmata took on the form of the marks of Christ's passion on his body.

The stigmatisation of Francis is not an exceptional phenomenon among ascetics of the Roman Catholic world. Stigmatisation appears to be characteristic of Roman Catholic mysticism in general, both before it happened to Francis, as well as after. Peter Damian, as an example, tells of a monk who bore the representation of the Cross on his body. Caesar of Geisterbach mentions a novice whose forehead bore the impress of a Cross. [1] Also, a great deal of data exists, testifying to the fact that after Francis' death a series of stigmatisations occurred which, subsequently, have been thoroughly studied by various investigators, particularly in recent times. These phenomena, as V. Guerier says, illuminate their primary source. Many of them were subjected to careful observation and recorded in detail, e.g.,, the case of Veronica Giuliani (1660-1727) who was under doctor's observation; Luisa Lato (1850-1883) described by Dr Varleman, [2] and Madelaine N. (1910) described by Janat. [3]
 ""Stigmatisation appears to be characteristic of Roman Catholic mysticism in general, both before it happened to Francis, as well as after."    

 This is utter nonsense.   It is only fair to look for Catholic ideals of sanctity among its recognised saints rather than elsewhere; and it must be noticed that none of the examples referred to by the author, apart from St Francis, have been canonised.;  Apart from St Francis and Padre Pio, I know of no other with the stigmata.   Certainly, Padre Pio is the very first priest with the stigmata ever to be canonised.   There have been many priest mystics in the history of the western Church; but, two thousand years after the foundation of the Church, not a single priest saint has had the stigmata, except for Padre Pio; and a study of his life shows that his stigmata was not actually welcomed by the Church authorities.   It could be truly said that he was canonised in spite of his stigmata, rather than because of it.   The stigmata of both saints were interpreted within the context of the saintly character of their lives rather than the other way round.   

The Church authorities at the time of St Francis considered his stigmata to be unique rather than typical, and many gave this an eschatalogical significance; while the authorities in the 20th century were  well aware that the presence of stigmata can have more than one explanation.   Another thing, I know of no Benedictine, saint or otherwise, who has ever had or claimed to have the stigmata.   It  largely belongs in a world inhabited by Franciscans, and even there, only two are canonised. Nevertheless, I argue that Saints Francis and Pio are true saints, every bit as holy and true brothers to St Seraphim and other Orthodox saints.

The stigmata of St Francis took place on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.   I don't think we can truly see the connection between St Seraphim and St Francis without having a look at the intimate connection between the feasts of the Transfiguration and of the  Holy Cross.

The Feast of the Transfiguration is on August 6th because that is 40 days before the Feast of the Exaltation on September 15th.   The Fathers see an intimate connection between the Transfiguration and the Crucifixion, especially between the scene where Peter, James and John witness the Transfiguration and their presence in the Garden of Gethsemane.  The two feasts mutually interpret each other.

   In the Cross, the divine Light, the glory of God as seen at the Transfiguration, is nothing less than the kenotic Love of God made clearly manifest on the Cross.    The willing acceptance by Christ of the supreme suffering and degradation of the Cross out of love is seen in St John's Gospel as a revelation of God's true light and glory.   It is only in the resurrection that the suffering of Christ and his glory can be experienced as two sides of the same reality: he is the Lamb, both dead and standing.   The Cross is the revelation of what happens to God's true glory when it lovingly submits itself to a world dominated by sin.  The Orthodox priest, Father Stephen Freeman, in his article, "The Long Defeat" in his blog "Glory to God for All Things", says,


 The tendency of many (particularly among contemporary Christians) to relegate the Cross to a historical moment, renders that “defeat” to the past and writes the remainder of subsequent history and the coming future under the heading of the resurrection. Christ died – but now He’s risen – having taken away any need for the Cross.
But this is utterly contrary to the preaching of Christ and the witness of the Scriptures. The Cross is more than historical moment – it is a revelatory moment as well – one that makes known the way of God and the manner of our salvation – always and everywhere.
"Our adversary understands only that our defeat means his victory. In this he is utterly mistaken and it is the resurrection that assures us and encourages us not to fear the Cross.But the resurrection is never anything apart from the Cross. There is no Resurrected Christ who is not always the Crucified Christ. Nor will there ever be a victorious Church that is not always the defeated Church. "
 There is no Transfiguration without the Cross, and no cross voluntarily undertaken out of love that is not a true transfiguration: and the proof of this is the Resurrection.   It is only within this context that we can compare and contrast the mystical experience of St Seraphim and St Francis or even the liturgical emphasis in both East and West on the Resurrection and the popular Western devotion to the Passion. The Passion is not opposed to the Resurrection: it is the other dimension of the same Christian Mystery. Devotion centred on the Passion would make no sense if Christ had not risen, just as the Resurrection makes no sense if Christ had not been crucified.  Because of this, I have been able to collect posts for the feast of the Transfiguration about God's glory shining through broken people and failure as well as through contemplation, light and beauty. 
 What all these experiences have in common is that they manifest the kenotic love of God. Thus, the Orthodox contributor to this magazine on the Transfiguration writes:
 The gate of the Kingdom of God is the Cross, and the Glory of God in the world begins with the Cross. Every revelation of the Glory of God within history, whether before or after the coming of Christ, constitutes a model or an extension of the Cross of Christ. Every experience of the Glory of God during this present life presages or accompanies an experience of the Mystery of the Cross.

Of course, there is a difference between the experience of St Seraphim and that of St Francis.   It is the same difference as there is between the Transfiguration of Christ and his Crucifixion.   As the Fathers interpreted it, the Transfiguration manifested to his disciples the continual presence of Christ's divinity in his humanity.   The new element in the Transfiguration was not something that happened to Christ, but what was granted to his three disciples to see: they saw him for the first time as he really was.   Their eyes were opened, and they saw what was not granted to others to see, the glory that belonged to him permanently.   They saw the divine light that was his self-giving, self-forgetting love in complete harmony and union with the Love that is God's nature, being the life of the Holy Trinity.   In contrast, his Crucifixion was a historical event, even though it was the supreme revelation of that permanent love which, at a human level, reached its maximum growth on the Cross, even though that historical event entered eternity as a dimension of his Resurrection.   

In the same way, when St Seraphim was transformed before Motovilov, it was not a new event in his life: God was revealing to Motovilov the continuing effect on us of receiving the Holy Spirit. Thus, Motovilov saw St Seraphim transfigured, but St Seraphim told him that he too was transformed by light, even though he was not aware of it.On the other hand, St Francis receiving the stigmata was a one-off event, an experience proper only to himself, even if it had lasting consequences for St Francis and his followers.   



We can now look at the account by St Bonaventure of St Francis receiving the stigmata, and will then go on to see the popular account of the same event as told us in the Fioretti.  Both are as much theological statements as they are objective accounts of what happened.   We will examine the theological presuppositions of each.   We will then be in a position to compare the two mystical experiences, that of St Francis with that of St Seraphim.

Here is an account given by St Bonaventure:
Chapter XIII
(my source: e-Catholic 2000)


OF THE SACRED STIGMATA1. It was the custom of that angelic man, Francis, never to be slothful in good, but rather, like the heavenly spirits on Jacob’s ladder, to be ever ascending toward God, or stooping toward his neighbour. For he had learnt so wisely to apportion the time granted unto him for merit that one part thereof he would spend in labouring for the profit of his neighbours, the other he would devote unto the peaceful ecstasies of contemplation. Wherefore, when according unto the demands of time and place he had stooped to secure the salvation of others, he would leave behind the disturbances of throngs, and seek a hidden solitude and a place for silence, wherein, giving himself up more freely unto the Lord, he might brush off any dust that was clinging unto him from his converse with men. Accordingly, two years before he yielded his spirit unto heaven, the divine counsel leading him, he was brought after many and varied toils unto an high mountain apart, that is called Mount Alverna. When, according unto his wont he began to keep a Lent there, fasting, in honour of Saint Michael Archangel, he was filled unto overflowing, and as never before, with the sweetness of heavenly contemplation, and was kindled with a yet more burning flame of heavenly longings, and began to feel the gifts of the divine bestowal heaped upon him. He was borne into the heights, not like a curious examiner of the divine majesty that is weighed down by the glory thereof, but even as a faithful and wise servant, searching out the will of God, unto Whom it was ever his fervent and chief desire to conform himself in every way.

2. Thus by the divine oracle it was instilled into his mind that by opening of the Book of the Gospels it should be revealed unto him of Christ what would be most pleasing unto God in him and from him. (Wherefore, having first prayed very devoutly, he took the holy Book of the Gospels from the altar, and made it be opened, in the name of the Holy Trinity, by his companion, a man devoted unto God, and holy. As in the threefold opening of the Book, the Lord’s Passion was each time discovered, Francis, full of the Spirit of God, verily understood that, like as he had imitated Christ in the deeds of his life, so it behoved him to be made like unto Him in the trials and sufferings of His Passion before that he should depart from this world. And, albeit by reason of the great austerity of his past life, and continual sustaining of the Lord’s Cross, he was now frail in body, he was no whit afeared, but was the more valorously inspired to endure a martyrdom. For in him the all-powerful kindling of love of the good Jesu had increased into coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame, so that many waters could not quench his love, so strong it was.When, therefore, by seraphic glow of longing he had been uplifted toward God, and by his sweet compassion had been transformed into the likeness of Him Who of His exceeding love endured to be crucified,—on a certain morning about the Feast of the Exaltation of Holy Cross, while he was praying on the side of the mountain, he beheld a Seraph having six wings, flaming and resplendent, coming down from the heights of heaven. When in his flight most swift he had reached the space of air nigh the man of God, there appeared betwixt the wings the Figure of a Man crucified, having his hands and feet stretched forth in the shape of a Cross, and fastened unto a Cross. Two wings were raised above His head, twain were spread forth to fly, while twain hid His whole body. Beholding this, Francis was mightily astonished, and joy, mingled with sorrow, filled his heart. He rejoiced at the gracious aspect wherewith he saw Christ, under the guise of the Seraph, regard him, but His crucifixion pierced his soul with a sword of pitying grief. He marvelled exceedingly at the appearance of a vision so unfathomable, knowing that the infirmity of the Passion doth in no wise accord with the immortality of a Seraphic spirit. At length he understood therefrom, the Lord revealing it unto him, that this vision had been thus presented unto his gaze by the divine providence, that the friend of Christ might have foreknowledge that he was to be wholly transformed into the likeness of Christ Crucified, not by martyrdom of body, but by enkindling of heart. Accordingly, as the vision disappeared, it left in his heart a wondrous glow, but on his flesh also it imprinted a no less wondrous likeness of its tokens. For forthwith there began to appear in his hands and feet the marks of the nails, even as he had just beheld them in that Figure of the Crucified. For his hands and feet seemed to be pierced through the midst with nails, the heads of the nails shewing in the palms of the hands, and upper side of the feet, and their points shewing on the other side; the heads of the nails were round and black in the hands and feet, while the points were long, bent, and as it were turned back, being formed, of the flesh itself, and protruding therefrom. The right side, moreover, was—as if it had been pierced by a lance—seamed with a ruddy scar, wherefrom ofttimes welled the sacred blood, staining his habit and breeches.

4. Now the servant of Christ perceived that the stigmata thus manifestly imprinted on his flesh could not be hidden from his intimate friends; nevertheless, fearing to make public the holy secret of the Lord, he was set in a great strife of questioning, to wit, whether he should tell that which he had seen, or should keep it silent. Wherefore he called some of the Brethren, and, speaking unto them in general terms, set before them his doubt, and asked their counsel. Then one of the Brethren, Illuminato by name, and illuminated by grace, perceiving that he had beheld some marvellous things, inasmuch as that he seemed almost stricken dumb with amaze, said unto the holy man: “Brother, thou knowest that at times the divine secrets are shewn unto thee, not only for thine own sake, but for the sake of others also. Wherefore, meseemeth thou wouldst have reason to fear lest thou shouldst be judged guilty of hiding thy talent, didst thou keep hidden that which thou hast received, which same would be profitable unto many.” At this speech, the holy man was moved, so that, albeit at other times he was wont to say “ My secret to me,” he did then with much fear narrate in order the vision aforesaid, adding that He who had appeared unto him had said some words the which, so long as he lived, he would never reveal unto any man. Verily we must believe that those utterances of that holy Seraph marvellously appearing on the Cross were so secret that perchance it was not lawful for a man to utter them.5. Now after that the true love of Christ had transformed His lover into the same image, and after that he had spent forty days in solitude, as he had determined, when the Feast of Saint Michael Archangel came, this angelic man, Francis, descended from the mountain, bearing with him the likeness of the Crucified, engraven, not on tables of stone or of wood, by the craftsman’s hand, but written on his members of flesh by the finger of the Living God. 
 Deacon  Keith Fournier comments on St Bonaventure's account:
 The grace of God has appeared in these last days in his servant Francis to all who are truly humble and lovers of holy poverty, who, while venerating in him God's superabundant mercy, learn by his example to reject whole heartedly ungodliness and worldly passions, to live in conformity with Christ and to thirst after blessed hope with unflagging desire."
With these words, which incorporate St Paul's letter to Titus 2:11, Bonaventure begins the Major Legend and lays out the challenges to the reader to follow in the footsteps of the little poor man of Assisi by walking with him up the mountain of Calvary and finding the path to transfiguration. 
The Major Legend was completed by Bonaventure after his own experience on the mountain of LaVerna, the place where Francis received the wounds of Christ, the stigmata. This is the place where Bonaventure writes, "that angelic man who descended from the mountain (LaVerna) carrying with him an image of the crucified not handmade on tablets of stone or wood, but inscribed in the members of his flesh by the finger of the Living God" 
The full revelation of this kind of realized eschatology in Francis became most clear to Bonaventure on La Verna. This experience, where Francis was stigmatized, was the Mount of Transfiguration in the life and ministry of Francis. There he became joined to the Transfigured Christ, who was crucified in and for love. 
LaVerna is what theologians call a hermeneutic, the lens through which Francis' life and meaning comes together for Bonaventure. The stigmata given on that Mountain is the seal confirming in the flesh of Francis the fullness of grace that was present in his life. Francis was a sign, a human sacramental of sorts, and the exemplar of evangelical perfection. 

He was, by grace, transformed into Jesus the Word, thus becoming what I call a word walking. This transfiguration thus also becomes a lens through which the life, spiritual progression, holiness and ministry of Francis comes into sharp focus for Bonaventure. He has his own experience on that same mountain and is never the same.

This unique connection between the Mountain of Golgotha and the Mountain of Transfiguration is unique to Francis - and unique to the theology developed by Bonaventure. Certainly, the Mount of Transfiguration is the central place in Eastern Christian Theology with the Eastern emphasis on deification as a way to articulate the work of transforming grace. The Incarnation is viewed in the East as including the entire Christ event from conception to Ascension.


Yet, there is little or no reference to a connection between these two mountains in Eastern Christian sources. Only in the Christological anthropology developed in the work of St. Nicholas Kavasalis, a fourteenth century Byzantine layman and mystic, could we even find a hint of this kind of connection: 
"It was when he mounted the cross and died and rose again that human freedom was won, that human form and beauty were created." This is a place for further research on the synergies between Eastern and Western mystical and spiritual theology - and their meeting in Bonaventure's theology. 

St. Bonaventure's Major Legend introduces us to Francis through the eyes of a friend and eye witness who saw, revealed in the little poor man of Assisi, the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, as replicated by love. In pointing us through Francis, to Jesus, Bonaventure invites us into the same encounter. That is what Saints are supposed to do.
 In the Fioretti, the stigmata of St Francis being both transfiguration and crucifixion is even more explicit by the emphasis placed on visible light:
And being thus inflamed in that contemplation, on that same morning he beheld a Seraph descending from heaven with six fiery and resplendent wings; and this seraph with rapid flight drew nigh unto St Francis, so that he could plainly discern him, and perceive that he bore the image of one crucified; and the wings were so disposed, that two were spread over the head, two were outstretched in flight, and the other two covered the whole body. And when St Francis beheld it, he was much afraid, and filled at once with joy and grief and wonder. He felt great joy at the gracious presence of Christ, who appeared to him thus familiarly, and looked upon him thus lovingly, but, on the other hand, beholding him thus crucified, he felt exceeding grief and compassion. He marvelled much at so stupendous and unwonted a vision, knowing well that the infirmity of the Passion accorded ill with the immortality of the seraphic spirit. And in that perplexity of mind it was revealed to him by him who thus appeared, that by divine providence this vision had been thus shown to him that he might understand that, not by martyrdom of the body, but by a consuming fire of the soul, he was to be transformed into the express image of Christ crucified in that wonderful apparition.

    Then did all the Mount Alvernia appear wrapped in intense fire, which illumined all the mountains and valleys around, as it were the sun shining in his strength upon the earth, for which cause the shepherds who were watching their flocks in that country were filled with fear, as they themselves afterwards told the brethren, affirming that this light had been visible on Mount Alvernia for upwards of an hour. And because of the brightness of that light, which shone through the windows of the inn where they were tarrying, some muleteers who were travelling in Romagna arose in haste, supposing that the sun had risen, and saddled and loaded their beasts; but as they journeyed on, they saw that light disappear, and the visible sun arise.
 To understand these accounts, you have to see them within the context of the whole life of St Francis and of Franciscan theology and spirituality as interpreted by St Bonaventure.   The prayer of St Francis to share in Christ's suffering is within the context of a dialogue with Christ after a lifetime of ever greater and more profound humility, in which St Francis had stepped out beyond reasoning and emotions and recognised the fire of Divine Love and the darkness of the Cross, the Transfiguration and the Crucifixion, to be revelations of the same reality.   Pope Benedict XVI, speaking about how St Bonaventure understood St Francis's and our ascent to God, said: 
Of these his writings, which are the soul of his government and show the way to follow both for the individual and for the community, I would like to mention just one, the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, [The Mind's Road to God], which is a "manual" for mystical contemplation. This book was conceived in a deeply spiritual place: Mount La Verna, where St Francis had received the stigmata. In the introduction the author describes the circumstances that gave rise to this writing: "While I meditated on the possible ascent of the mind to God, amongst other things there occurred that miracle which happened in the same place to the blessed Francis himself, namely the vision of the winged Seraph in the form of a Crucifix. While meditating upon this vision, I immediately saw that it offered me the ecstatic contemplation of Fr Francis himself as well as the way that leads to it."

The six wings of the Seraph thus became the symbol of the six stages that lead man progressively from the knowledge of God, through the observation of the world and creatures and through the exploration of the soul itself with its faculties, to the satisfying union with the Trinity through Christ, in imitation of St Francis of Assisi. The last words of St Bonaventure's Itinerarium, which respond to the question of how it is possible to reach this mystical communion with God, should be made to sink to the depths of the heart: "If you should wish to know how these things come about, (the mystical communion with God) question grace, not instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the fire that inflames all and transports to God with fullest unction and burning affection.... Let us then... pass over into darkness; let us impose silence on cares, concupiscence, and phantasms; let us pass over with the Crucified Christ from this world to the Father, so that when the Father is shown to us we may say with Philip, "It is enough for me."
 We now have enough material to examine in detail the thesis of the Orthodox author of the article on the stigmata of St Francis and show where he goes wrong.   We have seen that he begins with a false premise that the stigmata of St Francis is a common characteristic of Catholic mystics.   The whole point of the contemporary fascination with these stigmata was that they were unique.   For the Spirituals, he was the angel of the Apocalypse, heralding the New Age of the Holy Spirit.   For St Bonaventure who did not believe in a new Age of the Spirit, separate from what went before,  St Francis was a living icon of Christ, a sign that God was renewing his people; but he put this renewal in the context of the ongoing action of the Holy Spirit in the Church that is the source of Tradition.   Of course, after St Francis's stigmata, there was a rash of similar copycat phenomena, just as there were many claims of apparitions of the Blessed Virgin after Our Lady appeared at Lourdes; but all these belong more to the psychologist's couch than the Church.   They do not take away the element of sheer surpise from what happened on Mount Alverna and in Lourdes.

This mistake has led to another one. We must now ask, What was St Francis asking for in this passage from the Fioretti when he prayed:

    On the following day - being the Feast of the Holy Cross - St Francis was praying before daybreak at the entrance of his cell, and turning his face towards the east, he prayed in these words: “O Lord Jesus Christ, two graces do I ask of thee before I die; the first, that in my lifetime I may feel, as far as possible, both in my soul and body, that pain which thou, sweet Lord, didst endure in the hour of thy most bitter Passion; the second, that I may feel in my heart as much as possible of that excess of love by which thou, O Son of God, wast inflamed to suffer so cruel a Passion for us sinners.” And continuing a long time in that prayer, he understood that God had heard him, and that, so far as is possible for a mere creature, he should be permitted to feel these things. 
 I think the answer to this question is crucial and is most open to misunderstanding by Orthodox who use words in a different way.  He was not asking for anything like the stigmata, which was an idea unknown to him. It was a time when the writings of Dionysius the Areopogite were very much in vogue.   Ah!!  We are now on familiar territory with the Orthodox!!!  The way to approach God is to detach oneself from matter, to go byond rational thought.   The Orthodox author of the article on the stigmata of St Francis puts it this way:
Recalling how the ascetics of the Orthodox Church understand the highest (spiritual) prayer as detailed in the Philokalia, it is to be emphasized here that they regarded this prayer alongside their own personal strivings, as a synergetic operation (man co-operating with God) to achieve detachment, not only from everything physical or sensory, but also from rational thought. That is, at best, a direct spiritual elevation of the person to God, when the Lord God the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for the supplicant with "groanings which cannot be uttered." [10] As an example, St Isaac of Syria in his Directions says, "A soul which loves God, in God, and in Him alone finds peace. First release yourself from all your outward attachments, then your heart will be able to unite with God; for union with God is preceded by detachment from matter." [11] It is the plain speaking of St Nilos of Sinai, however, that slashes through with distinct clarity to present a serious juxtaposition to the alleged Divine visitation that Francis experienced. In the Text on Prayer, he admonishes: "Never desire nor seek any face or image during prayer. Do not wish for sensory vision or angels, or powers, or Christ, lest you lose your mind by mistaking the wolf for the shepherd and worship the enemies—the demons. The beginning of the beguilement (plani) of the mind is vainglory, which moves the mind to try and represent the Deity in some form or image.
 We must remember that the lifelong ambition of St Francis was to be a martyr.   He even went to preach to a Caliph, hoping to be martyred; but, instead, the Muslim official gave him and his followers permission to preach in the Holy Land!!   Just before his receiving the stigmata he had a dialogue with Christ.   This is part of the version of from the Fioretti:  

 As the Feast of the Holy Cross then drew nigh, in the month of September, Brother Leo went one night at his accustomed hour to say Matins with St Francis. When he came to the bridge, he said, as he was wont to do, Domine labia mea aperies; but St Francis made no answer. Yet Brother Leo turned not back as he had been commanded to do, but with a good and holy intention, he passed the bridge and went straight into the cell; but there he found not St Francis.     Thinking, therefore, that he was gone to pray in some solitary place, he went softly through the wood, seeking him in the moonlight. At last he heard his voice, and drawing near, beheld him kneeling in prayer with his face and hands lifted up towards heaven, and crying, in fervour of spirit: “Who art thou, my dearest Lord? and who am I, a most vile worm and thy most unprofitable servant?” and these words he repeated over and over again, adding nothing more.....[Then comes a dialogue between St Francis and Brother Leo.].... And when he St Francis) had said these words, he made him bring the book of the Gospels, because God had put it into his mind that, by thrice opening that book, he should learn what God would be pleased to do with him. And when the book was brought to him, St Francis went to prayer; and when he had prayed, he caused Brother Leo to open the book three times in the name of the most Holy Trinity; and, by the divine disposal, it opened each time at the Passion of Christ. And by this it was given him to understand that, even as he had followed Christ in the actions of his life, so should he follow and be confirmed to him in the sufferings and afflictions of his Passion, before he should pass out of this life
 The insight that was given to St Francis, one that became part of Franciscan tradition as expressed in the theology of St Bonaventure, is that the process of detachment as explained in the Philokalia is the way people practising contemplative prayer share in the death and resurrection of Christ.  Evagrius had written:
The mind will not see the place of God in itself, unless it rises above all thoughts of material and created things; and it cannot rise above them unless it becomes free of the passions binding it to sensory objects and inciting thoughts about them. It will free itself of passions by means of virtues, and of simple thoughts by means of spiritual contemplation; but it will discard even this when there appears to it that light which, during prayer, marks the place of God."
 For St Francis and the Franciscans, this process of stripping away is the way of entering the darkness of Christ's death in order to find the light of the resurrection.   It is this that St Francis wants with great intensity.  To desire to die with Christ and thus to share in his resurrection should be the desire of every Christian: it is the vocation of every Christian.  What made St Francis different from most is the intensity of that desire.   However, in this dialogue, he came to realise that his desire to be martyred, sharing in Christ's death by dying for Christ, was not to be granted to him.   Instead, he was to take part in " a synergetic operation (man co-operating with God) to achieve detachment, not only from everything physical or sensory, but also from rational thought. That is, at best, a direct spiritual elevation of the person to God, when the Lord God the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for the supplicant with "groanings which cannot be uttered."  The way of contemplation, he learned, is the way of interior martyrdom.  Thus, St Bonaventure, in a passage already quoted, tells us where to find  our way to God:
"If you should wish to know how these things come about, (the mystical communion with God) question grace, not instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the fire that inflames all and transports to God with fullest unction and burning affection.... Let us then... pass over into darkness; let us impose silence on cares, concupiscence, and phantasms; let us pass over with the Crucified Christ from this world to the Father..."
 St Francis and his stigmata are not opposed to the Philokalia: they show us how Christian the way of the Philokalia is.   

On the other hand, our Orthodox author illustrates how attempts to discredit Latin Catholic tradition can so easily end up by being unfaithful to the Orthodox tradition.   He writes:
Francis' ecstatic prayer was answered, but in the light of both St Isaac's and St Nilos' counsels, clearly not by Christ. The chronicle says that "Francis felt himself completely transformed into Christ," transformed not only in spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and psychological sensations, but also in physical ones. While granting that Francis was fully convinced that he had been spiritually taken up to the Logos, the rise of special physical sensations cannot, according to St Isaac, be ascribed to the action of a spiritually good power.
 This separation between spirit and body and the denial of the possibility of physical transformation by Grace was one of the main points made by the opponents of St Gregory Palamas and deserves the same answer: the human being is not a soul in a body, but a body-soul unity, and a change in its centre, what we call the "heart", can lead to a change anywhere in the person, including in his body.

The Orthodox writer is fundamentally wrong in saying that the stigmata are a normal characteristic of Catholic mysticism.   This mistake shows a massive ignorance on his part about Catholic mysticism: if he knows he knows nothing, he ought to have the humility to shut up.   It is also wrong to think that St Francis was praying on Mount Alverna for something like the stigmata.  He knew nothing about the possibility: it had not yet been invented.   Also, he was not "New Age" and, hence, was not seeking experiences, even experiences of God: he was seeking God.   The stigmata were not a denial of the classical doctrine as found in the Philokalia or in the works of St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila: it was Christ's approval of this doctrine.   It is also a witness to the Christian belief that a human being is not a soul in a body, but a body-soul whose centre is the heart, and that transformations in the heart means changes that can manifest themselves in the whole human being.   In opposing this, the Orthodox author is on the side of the opponents of St Gregory Palamas.   Finally, he does not distinguish his distaste for mediaeval hagiographic writing from his distaste for St Francis, making no attempt to understand the saint behind the writing.

 The Fioretti are stories, full of theological meaning, but stories nevertheless, where words are put into peoples' mouths to make obvious what the listeners may otherwise miss if they are not clearly stated.   They are stories designed to show how Christ himself was involved in the life of St Francis and in the foundation of the Franciscan movement.  They are also stories told to illustrate how St Francis became a living icon of Christ crucified for his and future generations.  If we are known by our fruits, then St Francis deserves his reputation as a saint.   Only people who project their own hang-ups onto evidence instead of letting the evidence speak for itself can deny that the Fioretti have failed.

The Byzantine Divine Liturgy places the kiss of peace before the recitation of the Creed.   This shows that we can only sing the Creed with one heart and one voice if we love one another.   There was a time when the ecclesial love of the Latin West did not stretch out to include the Orthodox, and the ecclesial love of the East did not stretch out to include the Catholic West. Schism resulted.  If either side looks at the other without ecclesial love, then it becomes infected by the virus of schism, and not only its vision of the other is falsified, but its arguments turm round to destroy itself.   This is shown in the attempt to put a rift between St Francis and St Seraphim, between Catholic mysticism and that of the Orthodox Church.   It can only be done by falsifying the other, by disobeying Christ's command not to judge our neighbour.   It is all too evident in the article we have been quoting.   I am sure there are Catholic articles that deserve the same treatment.

All these pseudo-problems having been shown up for what they are, the experience of St Francis and that of St Seraphim are seen clearly to be complementary rather than opposed, each shedding light on the other, just as the Transfiguration and the Passion shed light on each other.

Saints Francis and Seraphim, pray for us.


AUGUST 6th: THE TRANSFIGURATION OF OUR LORD

$
0
0
Here is the magnificent mosaic of the Cross in the semi-dome of the apse of Sant' Apollinare in Classe in Ravenna, made around 549 probably by many of the same artists who made the mosaics at San Vitale in the same city. The Cross appears as a giant emblem of gold and jewels floating in a blue nimbus filled with stars. Below it is the figure of Saint Apollinaris, a sainted local bishop buried below the altar. On either side is a procession of sheep, symbols of the faithful. The Cross is the center of an unusual version of the Transfiguration, told entirely in symbols. Flanking the Cross at the top are figures of Moses and Elijah. The hand of God comes down out of the very top indicating the voice that spoke out of the cloud. Three sheep appear just below the Cross, one on the left and two on the right. They stand for Peter, James, and John who witnessed the event. 



This mosaic is an example of the variety of Byzantine art before the Iconoclastic Controversy. Compare it with the almost contemporary version of the same subject in the apse of the monastery church of Saint Catherine in the Sinai.
The Greek Church instituted a feast of the Transfiguration long before it was adopted by the West, fixing the day to August 6th, forty days, the length of Lent, before the Exaltation of the Cross. This association of the Transfiguration with the Passion is beautifully expressed by the early Byzantine mosaic in the apse of Sant’Apollinare in Classe near Ravenna, built in the mid-6th century. The witnesses of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah above, the Apostles Peter, James and John below, represented as three sheep, are standing around a great jeweled Cross, rather than Christ in in His glory and majesty; only the face of the Lord appears, within a small medallion in the middle of the Cross, an expression of the humility with which He accepted the Passion.


The three witnesses of the Transfiguration, Ss. Peter, James and John, often appear together in the Gospels as the disciples closest to Christ. Along with Peter’s brother St. Andrew, they were the first disciples called to follow Him, and were present for the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4, 38-39); they were also the witnesses of the healing of the daughter of Jairus, (Mark 5, 37) and the agony in the garden (Mark 14, 33). They alone receive new names from Christ as a sign of their mission, (Mark 3, 16-17) Peter, “the Rock”, being the name given to Simon, James and John receiving the name Boanerges, “sons of thunder”. But at the Transfiguration, as in so many other places, it is Peter alone whose words the Evangelists record for us, words which the church of Rome sings this days at his very tomb, “Lord, it is good for us to be here.

The Transfiguration of Our Lord:
 a commentary on the icon,
by Dom Alex Echeandia O.S.B.


Size: 70.5cm by 49cm
 Texts: Matt. 17: 1-9,   Mark 9: 1-9,   Luke 9: 28b-36

This icon was written in  the Monastery of the Incarnation, Peru,                               based on an icon written by Theophanes the Greek in the Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Pereslav at the beginning of the XVth Century, now in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow


This solemnity commemorates liturgically the consecration of the basilicas on Mount Tabor.  In spite of the fact that it is a less ancient feast than that of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, it takes its date from that feast.   According to an ancient tradition, the Transfiguration of Our Lord took place forty days before the Crucifixion.   Thus the feast of the Transfiguration is forty days before the Exultation which is on September 14th.   The connection between the two feasts is shown by the fact that, from August 6th, the Church sings hymns about the Cross.

The feast of the Transfiguration dates from the end of the Vth century, and already in the VIth century, we find enormous depictions of the Transfiguration in the central apses of basilicas at Parenzo, in Saint Apollinare in Ravenna  and in St Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.


In the Orthodox Church, every iconographer, after his hands have been consecrated to practise the wonderful ministry to reproduce Beauty and to be a messenger of the light that is revealed through the icon, begins his service by “writing” an icon of the Transfiguration of the Lord, because every icon is a reflection of the luminous and glorious face of Christ as he appears on Mount Tabor.   The iconographer has to manifest in colours and by symbol the interior image contemplated by him in his own prayer and to communicate to others by means of his art, as they ascend their own interior mountain to pray, something of the glow of the divine rays of light that illuminated the apostles.


The icon is very true to the Gospel narrative and focuses our attention on the scene as a whole.   Some icons show Jesus ascending the mountain with his disciples on one side, and descending on the other side, telling them not to reveal anything that has happened.   However, more often, all the attention is given to the central episode which reveal  this mystery before our eyes most directly,  with emphasis on the protagonists in this meeting and on the two spaces that appear to become one: heaven and earth.

The central figure is Christ who directs his gaze on the person who is contemplating the icon, with the desire to transmit his glory as Son of God, shining with a light that illuminates every part of the icon: the faces and clothes of all who are there, the rocks in the countryside, all and everything are illuminated by the light that has its source in Christ.   His clothes are white, as at the resurrection,  an explosion of divinity, of light, of the light that is” the light of men.”   The white clothes show who is the source of that light, “God from God, Light from Light,” as we confess in the Creed.   It is the shining whiteness that the author of the Gospel describes with such wonder.   Christ is at the centre of a circle of light which stands for the Glory, the Divinity, the Infinite.   The sun at dawn breaks upon us, as we sing in the Benedictus of Zecheriah.


In some icons of the transfiguration, Christ appears in middle of a geometric pattern called a “mandorla” .   It represents the “luminous cloud” that covered him.   In the Bible this cloud stands for the presence of God, and it is a symbol of the Holy Spirit who is within Jesus, who covers him and who  fills the whole of humanity in a veiled way, and who at the resurrection shall appear in all his strength.

In Christ the whole Trinity is both revealed and hidden:

The Father who says, “This is my most beloved Son.   Listen to him.
The Beloved Son, revealed as Word and as pleasing to the Father.
The Spirit is the cloud  which stands for the Glory and the Presence the hangs over the Son as in the Incarnation when he covered Mary with his shadow as a cloud.


Jesus is accompanied by two figures, an old man who is Elijah and a younger one who is Moses.   Moses is carrying a stone tablet which signifies the Law.   The Law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) bear witness to Jesus.   The two are friends of God, men of the mountains and of prayer, the man of Sinai (Moses) and of Carmel and Horeb (Elijah),   The two represent the whole of mankind, the dead (Moses) and the living (Elijah) because, according to biblical tradition, he did not die but was taken up into heaven in a chariot  of  fire (merkabah).   Jesus is Lord of the living and the dead.   They both sought the face of God but did not see Him.   They now contemplate the face of Christ who is the image of the Father.   Before the Christ of the Transfiguration, the Law gives way to the supreme Law.  Here the Lord does not manifest himself as the gentle breeze as on Mount Horeb which surprised Elijah; rather as the full revelation of the Word of the Father.   Moses and Elijah represent the Old Testament which is fulfilled in the New.

In the lower part of the icon are the three chosen disciples of Jesus, Peter, John and James.   They enter into the same Glory of Jesus.   The contrast in their posture is clear.   Jesus and the two figures from the Old Testament seem to show the peace of eternal life.   


The disciples, on the other hand, are prostrated on the earth by the sheer glory of the Lord, struck down in a posture of holy awe because no one can see God without being totally dumbstruck by the force of the vision.   They are disconcerted by the light and the voice.  They are witnesses who have experienced the stunning force of a full theophany.


Peter turns to Jesus and have enough presence of mind to suggest to him, "Let us construct three tents..."  a then seems to be overcome by a tremendous joy.   John, the youngest of the three, witness to the Word, appears in complete consternation; it looks as though he wishes to escape.   He covers his eyes with his cloak as though the light is blinding him more effectively than the sun.   James, also on the ground, covers his face with his cloak, unable to look on his Master face to face.   These three are witnesses to the glory of Jesus, as they will be of the agony of Jesus, subject to the fears of death.


This event shows us the divinity of Christ who, passing through his death, resurrection and ascension, manifests himself to us as the shining Glory of the Father, having offered himself  for us voluntarily (Mark 9: 2-0).

When you were transfigured, Oh Christ God, on Mount Tabor, you revealed your glory to your disciples according to their capacity.   Let your eternal light shine on us who are sinners by the intercession of the Mother of God.   Oh Giver of Light, glory be to you.

Transfigured on the mountain, your disciples have seen you and have contemplated your glory, oh Christ, you who are God; then when they saw you crucified, they understood that you did what you did because of your love, that your passion was absolutely voluntary, and they could preach to the world that you are the Splendour of the Father.  (Troparion for the Transfiguration)




READ SOME EXCELLENT ILUSTRATED ARTICLES ON THE TRANSFIGURATION

also click on

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ST SERAPHIM COMPARED   WITH THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE OF ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI ON MOUNT VERNA


Viewing all 948 articles
Browse latest View live