Full text of Archbp. Ranjith’s talk in the Netherlands

Our friends in the common cause over at Rorate have put up the full text of the talk, in English, delivered in the Netherlands by His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

You will remember that in an unscripted part of his talk, Archbp. Ranjith said: this, with my emphases.

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right.
What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do
not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

Here is the prepared text of the speech.

My emphases and comments.

Challenges to the Mission of the Church Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus and the new Torah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hierarchical nature of the Church as the same document confirms does
not come from a bottom to top orientation but the other way around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May He bless and protect the Church!

Thank you.

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

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. techno_aesthete says:

    Fr. Z., It looks like you have an open strikethrough tag.

  2. techno: Thanks. And sorry about the format. I just don’t have time to clean it up.

    I need an assistant.


  3. Brian Day says:

    Can we get +Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith to address the USCCB meeting next month?

  4. Malta says:

    much food for thought, especially the bit about “obedience.” It was Satan who said “non serviam”: “I will not serve.” Pride, arrogance led to the fall. The attitude, “I can do it better” pervades the Church on the right and left. I do believe we need follow the man who holds the keys, even if we disagree with some of his policies.

  5. LeonG says:

    As a cradle Catholic who once continually suffered about 18 years of novus ordo liturgies both as an “insider” and “outsider”, Archbishop Ranjith’s words are welcome in the sense that the philosophies that frequently drive modern liturgy and its organisers are those tendancies he implicitly criticises and which often translate themselves as illicit liturgical behaviours and disregard for Church directives on the liturgy. Accompanying these were also manifest secular postmodernist trends and practices in the form of useages of inclusive language and personal preferences, such as inappropriate musical choices, and styles, peripheral un-Catholic church decorations, for the Sunday liturgy, to name but a few instances.

    One can only applaud this Archbishop for his public statement which in essence, if we may use this term in the light of modernistic philosophies abounding, must be emphasising a more uniform, orthodox and reverent form of liturgical expression than we have at present. He certainly has a definite sensus catholicus for the principle of “lex orandi…..lex credendi”. As Pope Benedict XVI wishes to make changes to the venacular form of the Mass then he has obviously understood that there is an urgent need in order to realign this necessary equation of Catholic norms with Catholic values and mores. This being the intention, they both will certainly have my full support.

    Having personally witnessed since the 1970s, the demise of many religious communities and institutions and church closures together with reductions in the numbers of Masses on Sunday, the sheer pain resulting from this can no longer be left unsaid. It is long past time for affirmative Catholic action and who better to lead us than our esteemed shepherds. I beg for this in my prayers.

  6. Ave Maria says:

    I attended my first extraordinary form of the Mass while on pilgrimage on
    First Saturday. It was glorious! And I had to ask Our Lord: Why? Why did we
    ahve to lose this, our heritage? Why have millions lost the faith. I do not
    understand why this had to happen.

    I was able to have adoration and benediction most days of my journey. I wept
    at the final time of benediction as I do not know when I will next experience
    this devotion of love for Our Lord.

    The continued scandal of disobedience in the matter of the extraordinary form
    and in other areas is a grave concern. And I feel as though I am watching the
    faith die where I live. Today I spoke to my husband about moving. I really
    wish to live in a Roman Catholic parish and know the fullness of faith in a
    living manner.

Comments are closed.