![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Letter to the Church in China: first glance
Here are some rapid notes after a first reading. This should post appear after the embargo is lifted, after 1200h in Rome.
The Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China.
The text is now ready in all the major languages, including Chinese in both simplified and traditional characters.
The text is not available in Latin. It is dated to Pentecost Sunday.
It is divided in two parts, a theological examination of the Church in China and guidelines for Pastoral Life
A recurring theme in the first part of the letter is suffering. Benedict expresses his unity with the people, a great people with a long tradition, who are suffering. At the same time as he looks at the particular situation of the Chinese people, he also underscores the Catholic tradition and the meaning of what it is to be a Church.
As in everything this Pope writes and says, he is concerned to speak to the Church herself, considered as the Church (ad intra) and also how the Church interacts with the word and fits in a particular social context (ad extra).
The Church has had a painful experience in China for the last fifty years. There were persecutions in the 1950’s and expulsions of foreigners. Chinese Catholics became isolated and an official Church was established by the government to control religious activity. Consecration of bishops without papal mandate in 1958 wounded the unity of the Church. The Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was a time of great trial. The 1980’s saw some openings and tolerance. Faith had remained alive. Some Catholic pastors were determined not to be too influenced by the government and opted to function in a clandestine way. Others opted to work with the government Church some seeking also union with the Successor of Peter. There remain those who believe the official Church is independent, which is not reconciable with Catholic doctrine. In the climate of doubt, many Catholic priests and bishops have sought from Rome some counsel on how to proceed. With this letter the Pope offers some guidelines for the life of the Church and the task of evangelization. (No. 2).
He recognizes their suffering, and the value of that suffering. He knows that reconciliation cannot be accomplished overnight. (no. 6).
Benedict repeats the words of Jesus in Luke 5:4, "Duc in altum... cast out into the deep". In a way, this suggests to me that if missionaries cannot arrive in China, perhaps we need to make better use of tools of social communication in evangelization and promoting unity. These words were also used by John Paul II in his letter about using the internet. However, in this Letter, Benedict says, "Duc in altum" invites "us to remember the past with gratitude, to live the present with enthusiasm and to look forward to the future with confidence". (No. 3) Again, in this phrase we see Benedict’s desire to establish continuity with the past, for the sake of a healthy present and future.
On practical matters, Benedict gives guidelines about the recognition of ecclesiastics by government authorities and about the appointment of bishops.
Again, Benedict stresses, as he has been doing in Italy, that the Church cannot replace the State. The State and Church have different missions. However, the Church must not be silenced. She has a mission to fulfill, to proclaim Christ. It is not the Church’s primary task to to build a the most just earthly society. However, she cannot be sidelined either. (cf. Deus caritas est). As a result, she does not wish for ongoing conflict with civil authorities, but she will not yield her rights when there is undue interference in "matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church."
In language that seems to be proposed as a bridge, Benedict writes: "No one in the Church is a foreigner, but all are citizens of the same People, members of the same Mystical Body of Christ. The bond of sacramental communion is the Eucharist, guaranteed by the ministry of Bishops and priests." The government is often concerned about "foreign" influence in China.
The Pope dwells on the need for reconciliation for the purpose of authentic communion, moving beyong the pain and personal positions and difficult experiences. Force cannot be the model. While charity must rule the God given ecclesial and hierarchical structure of the Church cannot be compromised. The ministry of the Apostles is a sine qua non. The State cannot place itself above the Church’s own authority to guide the ecclesial life of the faithful.
Does collaboration with or recognition from civil authorities compromise communion with the universal Church? Benedict responds that
"courageous safeguarding of the deposit of faith and of sacramental and hierarchical communion is not of itself opposed to dialogue with the authorities concerning those aspects of the life of the ecclesial community that fall within the civil sphere. There would not be any particular difficulties with acceptance of the recognition granted by civil authorities on condition that this does not entail the denial of unrenounceable principles of faith and of ecclesiastical communion." (No. 7).Benedict applies a principle of subsidiarity, leaving it to the local bishop to determine in the precise local context how to balance these aims. He stresses that the faithful must remain in union with the bishop.
Addressing the issue of bishops, Benedict speaks to a number of topics, including their formation. The role of bishops is vital and no lay person can become the de facto head of a community. Also, given the nature of the Petrine Ministry and the Apostolic succession and its ministry, "the proposal for a Church that is ‘‘independent’’ of the Holy See, in the religious sphere, is incompatible with Catholic doctrine."
Even when bishops are consecrated without pontifical mandate, their consecration is valid. In the case of bishops who have not sought unity with the Holy See, their sacramental ministry is valid, but illegitimate.
The Letter does not state that these bishops are excommunicated for being consecrated without papal mandate. This seems to be a recognition of the need to consider the social context and difficult conditions of the Church in China.
The Letter reminds bishops that no bishop or groups of bishops in Episcopal Conferences can be subjected to civil authorities when teaching about faith and moral and the Church’s sacramental life. (no. 8).
However, the present official "College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the ‘‘clandestine’’ Bishops, those not recognized by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine."
When the Pope approves the appointment of bishops, he exercises spiritual authority, strictly within the religious sphere, not political authority. When appointing a bishop the Pope does not interfer with the internal affairs of a State. Benedict hopes that some agreement can be reached so that the Holy See can be free to appoint bishops. He is willing to work with the government to resolve questions regarding certain candidates and the publication of their appointments.
The section on practical guidelines, I will look at later.
At the end the Pope proposes that 24 May could be a future day of prayer for Catholics around the world in unity with the Church in China, with special reference to Our Lady, Help of Christians, venerated at the Shrine of Sheshan in Shanghai.
I would like to add my confusion that the episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate wounded the unity of the Church, and not their occupation and usurpation of Diocesan Sees. Never in the history – before the weird canonical allegations of Cardinal Gantin in Ecclesia Dei 1988 – of the Church have episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate been considered in themselves to be (intrinsically) schismatic or the breeders of a schism. It is the usurpation of jurisdiction of the Pope and bishops in communion with him, which forms and consummates the schism. The episcopal consecrations are merely an act logically preceding them.
Another worrying thing is that the excommunication of the Chinese Patriotic bishops in 1951 is not mentioned at all. Of course there was grave fear in the matter and coercion. But some have testified of their malign intentions by actively calling for schism and even heresies in the realm of moral theology.
This letter was much needed, but contains serious Canonical flaws, especially as regards to the link between illicit episcopal consecrations in themselves and schism. Illicit episcopal consecrations are headed in the CIC 1983 as abuse of ecclesiastical power, not as a crime against the unity of the Catholic Church.
The Chinese undergound Church is promising despite all. And the even the patriotics protested the planned dynamitation of a local Harbing Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Shrine by the communist authorities (who claim it is a dangerous place of illegal worship). Sanguis martyrum, semen christianorum est.
And most Chinese Roman Catholics really believe in all dogmas of Faith and are not lukewarm cradle “Catholics” like in the Western world. Many, I have heard so from a Sinologian traditional priest, priests and underground continental bishops long for the Traditional Roman Mass to be restored (they lost it after introduction of the “Vatican-faithful” new missal after 1978; the Patriotics inserted a new vernacular liturgy starting from 1987).
Our Lady, Empress of China, pray for us.
Comment by Alex — 30 June 2007 @ 5:25 am“Consecrated Persons”? Terrible choice of words. What happened to “To His Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and all other Local Ordinaries that are at Peace and in Communion with the Apostolic See, and to the Clergy and Faithful of the entire Catholic World.
Venerable Brethren and Dearest Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.” as Blessed John XXIII put it?
Comment by Antonius — 30 June 2007 @ 7:51 am“In recent years, for various reasons, you, my Brother Bishops, have encountered difficulties, since persons who are not “ordained’‘, and sometimes not even baptized, control and take decisions concerning important ecclesial questions, including the appointment of Bishops, in the name of various State agencies. Consequently, we have witnessed a demeaning of the Petrine and episcopal ministries by virtue of a vision of the Church according to which the Supreme Pontiff, the Bishops and the priests risk becoming de facto persons without office and without power. Yet in fact, as stated earlier, the Petrine and episcopal ministries are essential and integral elements of Catholic doctrine on the sacramental structure of the Church. The nature of the Church is a gift of the Lord Jesus, because “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’’ (Eph 4:11-13).
Communion and unity – let me repeat (cf. section 5 above) – are essential and integral elements of the Catholic Church: therefore the proposal for a Church that is ‘‘independent’’ of the Holy See, in the religious sphere, is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
I am aware of the grave difficulties which you have to address in the aforementioned situation in order to remain faithful to Christ, to his Church and to the Successor of Peter. Reminding you that – as Saint Paul said (cf. Rom 8:35-39) – no difficulty can separate us from the love of Christ, I am confident that you will do everything possible, trusting in the Lord’s grace, to safeguard unity and ecclesial communion even at the cost of great sacrifices.
Comment by n — 30 June 2007 @ 7:56 amAlex –
Greetings from Shanghai, but …
You need to get your facts straight. There was no excommunication of the Patriotic bishops in 1951 because there were no Patriotic bishops in 1951. The Catholic Patriotic Association was founded in 1957, and the first two illicit ordinations took place in April 1958. One of those, Dong Guangqing of Haikou, was reconciled with John Paul II in the early 1980s by Fr. Larry Murphy, then President of Seton Hall. You can hear Murphy talk about the process by which that reconciliation took place here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/poetry/antholog/larrymurphyoaudio.htm
Point is, none of the 50+ illicitly ordained bishops was ever excommunicated.
Also, the vernacular mass was first prayed in Shanghai in September 1989 – not 1987. The celebrant was Father Joseph Zen, and the location was the Sheshan Seminary in Shanghai (located just below the basilica at Sheshan, which the Pope refers to in his letter as the “memorial of Our Lady, Help of Christians, who is venerated with great devotion at the Marian Shrine of Sheshan in Shanghai). The vernacular slowly spread – both in the underground and registered churches – until was approved by the national religious authorities in 1993.
AntonioG
Comment by AntonioG — 30 June 2007 @ 8:30 amAntonius, the phrase consecrated persons refers to those who have taken religious vows. It’s not a poor choice of words, its a method of including all categories of the faithful in the address.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 30 June 2007 @ 9:17 amWhat interested me was this paragraph, and the several leading to it, which may have some relevance to the traditionalist situation:
Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid. Therefore the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.
Comment by thetimman — 30 June 2007 @ 9:21 amWhat interested me was this paragraph, and the several leading to it, which may have some relevance to the traditionalist situation:
Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid. Therefore the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.
Comment by thetimman — 30 June 2007 @ 9:21 amTim Ferguson: Of course I realize what the term “Consecrated Persons” refers to. I still think the example I gave above is a gazillion times more elegant way of beginning an apostolic letter.
Comment by Antonius — 30 June 2007 @ 9:55 amthanks for coming?
Comment by thetimman — 30 June 2007 @ 10:29 amThe Holy Father certainly gives the faithful in worldwide some ‘food for thought’, especially articulating that China’s Bishops Conference cannot be recognized by the Vatican.
It begs the question, what is the Spiritual Role and importance for Bishops Conferences recognized by the Vatican?
Comment by Michael — 30 June 2007 @ 10:31 am———————-
“In the light of the principles expounded above, the present College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the “clandestine’’ Bishops, those not recognized by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”———————-
Circuit:
Circuit: A shame it is that a serious discussion of people inside the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, should be interrupted by your outburst of raw Protestant fundamentalism and intolerance. I am not pious as are the people who do this website or correspond with it, so let me say that you ought to go back to the Scriptures and read about charity and love of fellowman. Your intolerance, it may surprise you to learn, is not charity. One may disagree but one must do it in love and respect to one’s fellow man. Your invective sounds rehearsed, something you memorized from yahoo Protestant ministers as loud as they are ignorant.
Spare us the invective. You intellectuality has the depth of a water puddle.
Michael
Comment by Michael Dorner — 30 June 2007 @ 11:48 amFirst reactions (I skimmed the letter.) I’m going to HK and China mainland next week and will go to Mass at the Cathedral (hope to hear Cardinal Zen’s sermon). Things I like about the letter: the current Episcopal Conference is not legitimate; the open Church bishops who profess their communion with Rome should make a public confession of their fidelity to the Pope and let their congregations know (this is a tricky point and may be the most inflammatory part of the letter-the PA will not like it because they will see it as urging open underminiing of the PA’s authority; on the other hand it may lead to a “convenience”), and proclaiming the Sheshan shrine (am I mistaken this is the one where the army has been taking exercises?) a special shrine for China. Things I do not understand: the whole issue of excommunication of certain bishops. Things I would caution to bear in mind: China is not Poland; JPII’s Polishness was central to his mission in Communist Poland; Benedict is a “foreigner” to China although he enjoys tremendous esteem because the Chinese revere their scholars. Catholic Poland and modern China are very different: the Protestant community enjoys great reach in China because they are not in a conflict between Church and State, no need to declare fealty to Rome. Also, Benedict has hit the right note when he talks about suffering. The Chinese have a great tradition of suffering in silence if possible and suffering in death if necessary (somewhat like Thomas More) and a great tradition of subtlety. Actually I think Benedict shows in this letter a very great understanding of Chinese culture and the “Chinese” mind-set. My father who was a Chinese scholar of the third rank taught me about tradition; that’s why I presume to write like this.
Comment by Rose — 30 June 2007 @ 11:54 amI should clarify that my father was a scholar of third rank in the “imperial” examinations, not that he was a third rate scholar!
Comment by Rose — 30 June 2007 @ 11:57 amAntonius, the only problem with the examples you gave were that those apostolic letters were addressed to a wider audience. This letter is addressed, specifically, to the faithful in China. I can think of few things more elegant than precision in address.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 30 June 2007 @ 12:21 pmRose –
Sheshan is not the shrine that is slated for demolition by the government of Henan Province. That one is in Anyang.
Sheshan is in Shanghai.
Sheshan, in fact, is an interesting choice for the Pope. The Marian shrine and basilica were built by the French in the 19th century, I believe. In the early 80s, the current bishop of Shanghai, an official bishop, somehow negotiated some extra land from the government, adjacent to the shrine, and built China’s first post-Mao seminary there. Some 500 priests or something like that have been trained there since. I think it’s the biggest seminary in China, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why Benedict chose it. That’s a place where the official church made a positive impact.
This is going to be an educational time for all of us interested in China’s Catholics.
Comment by AntonioG — 30 June 2007 @ 12:23 pmAs thetinman wrote, I think that this sentence is very important to the traditionalist position: “Therefore the faithful. . .where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.”
To me this means that if a Catholic is unable to attend a holy and sacred Novus Ordo Mass without the usual abuses, “for the sake of their spiritual good” they may attend Masses of the Society of Saint Pius X. SSPX bishops are validly consecrated, their priests are validly ordained, and the fullness of their communion with Rome is a debatable subject based on varied Vatican documents.
This statement from Pope Benedict also fits in with his desire to reconcile with the SSPX. If the pope would declare the excommications of the four SSPX bishops invalid, along with the forthcoming Moto Proprio freeing the Latin Mass, then real discussions on doctrinal issues could begin with the SSPX leadership. It may well be that His Holiness knows that he needs the help of the SSPX to save the Church and he is reaching out to obtain that help. Of course, Bishop Fellay must proceed very carefully beecause he is not just dealing with the pope, but with the entire Vatican apparatus which has been less than trustworthy in the past. May God give His Excellency the graces to do what needs to be done.
Comment by Jim Capaldi — 30 June 2007 @ 2:27 pmJim said: To me this means that if a Catholic is unable to attend a holy and sacred Novus Ordo Mass without the usual abuses, “for the sake of their spiritual good†they may attend Masses of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Apples and oranges. China is ruled by a murderous totalitarian dictatorship. The Church is seeking to cope with the situation in China in such a way that what is a de facto schism does not become permanent. Allowing the faithful in a emergency to seek the sacraments from bishops and priests not in communion with her is already a part of canon law. But why would the Church go that route with the SSPX, where there is no tyrannical government attempting to subvert the unity and liberty of the Church? As far as I know, it would be a rare occasion when a Catholic would have no other option but to assist at one of the SSPX’s illegal Masses.
If the pope would declare the excommications of the four SSPX bishops invalid
The Pope can’t do that. He could rescind their excommunications, but he can’t say that they were never excommunicated at all. The law of the Church is pretty clear that bishops who consecrate bishops without papal permission have broken their communion with the Church. The Church may decide to forgive them and restore them to communion (which is essentially what the Church is doing with the Chinese government’s version of the Catholic Church), but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any severing of unity with the Church.
Comment by Jordan Potter — 30 June 2007 @ 3:00 pmFather,
What will be the practical consequence of the paragraph of the letter re