Vatican II and the hermeneutic law of Pope John XXIII

Jack Oostveen, author of this letter, with Pope Benedict XVI

Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church

This letter has been sent by e-mail to about 3100 Bishops (Diocesan and Auxiliary ).

 

January 13th, 2019 – Sunday after Epiphany, the baptism of the lord.

Your Excellency,For the good of the Church I respectfully request some of your valuable time in bringing the following matter to your attention and with a request to present this to the Holy Father.
 

It is a fact that the most of you were ordained after the Second Vatican Council. At the opening of the Council, only the eldest among you were about 19 years old and maybe young seminarians, while others were still in their childhood or even among the growing population of “not-yet-born”. Therefore, the Council is becoming more and more a historical event of which one has only second hand knowledge, which confronts us with contradictory ways of understanding the underlying hermeneutics: ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ being the main problems.
 

Herewith, it appears that lethal fruits are more and more manifestly apparent in the Church, namely “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars”. I maintain that these are direct consequences of the fact that a majority of Council Fathers and their theologians had acted in free will, contrary to a “gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” even on the first working day of the Council [Ref. 1]. And I also provide evidence that false portrayals of Pope John XXIII and the Council’s objectives have been deliberately created [Ref. 2]. This has led in subsequent years to a deliberate and deceitful referencing of the so-called ‘Spirit of the Council’ for interpreting the Council’s documents, in a manner contradictory to the hermeneutic law as set by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address.
 

Pope John XXIII stated this as being: a renewal, not in a vague kind of continuity or a discontinuity, but explicitly in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers, never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers” [Ref. 3].
 

Consequently, referring to the ‘Spirit of the Council’ has led to a departure “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, by which more and more faithful have lost their Faith. Others wandering as sheep found themselves focussing on Sacred Tradition (i.e. “the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”) as their anchorage of Faith. While some others who consider that the false portrayals were true, have reached the ultimate conclusion and accused Pope John XXIII for what was laid down in these false portrayals. Therefore, those who have created and cherished these false portrayals or who have continually proclaimed them, bear a great responsibility for the consequences.
 

Evidently, with the words of Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address we find here a clear and prophetical explanation why these lethal fruits exist since the years of Vatican II:

‘Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars’

 

Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that by allowing these irregular acts and their lethal fruits, the Holy Spirit always respect the free will of man, even that of each individual Council Father and their theological advisors individually. Just like Jesus respected the free will of Peter, when he three times denied knowing Jesus. Whereas, at the same time and above all in a wonderful way, the Holy Spirit also protected the Pastoral Council against creating full heresies. This by leaving open the possibility of interpreting the Council’s documents by free will in accordance with the rule set by the lawmaker of the Council, Pope John XXIII when he stated: “a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers”. Thereby, given that the Council was set up as “Pastoral”, the full Doctrine of the Church is the leading guide and has to be maintained “pure and integral” and undoubtedly “without attenuations or distortion” [Ref. 4].

Please, I humbly beg you for your heartfelt and sincere prayers for the Holy Father. While Pope Francis has been drowned in, and as such betrayed for more than 55 years, by the dissident liberal spirit of the Jesuits, he certainly needs and deserves our spiritual support. So that, as St. Peter initially denied to know Jesus thrice, similarly, he may have a change of heart, following which he can also confirm his brethren.

With my heartfelt gratitude for your kind and generous consideration, I offer you the assurance of my filial support and prayers, I hope for a speedy reply, and I humbly ask for the grace of your blessing.

Faithfully in Christo

-o-o-o-o-

 

Additionally to this letter:

To whom, who has some difficulties regarding the conservative understanding of Pope John XXIII, please, consider the Opening Address of the Council by Pope John XXIII as well as the following contributions of Peter Kwasnewski published at the New Liturgical Movenent:

1. The Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the on the Vatican website only in Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese. The English translation can be found outside the Vatican website here.
2. Remembering the Real John XXIII
3. A New Series: Pope John XXIII in His Own Words
4. John XXIII in His Own Words (2): The Mass and the Priesthood
5. John XXIII in His Own Words (3): Devotion to Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX
6. John XXIII in His Own Words (4): The Defense of Catholic Truth
7. St John XXIII Asks the Faithful Not to Applaud in Church

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 1

This concerns a chain of irregular acts on October 13th, 1962, the first working day of the Council, that were deliberately initiated by Father Yves Congar O.P. and had been discussed by the French Bishops on the previous evening, October 12th. These irregular acts are enumerated as follows:

1. Cardinal Liénart, a member of the Presidium, reading a paper prepared by Mgr. Garonne. This was doubly irregular, firstly the intervention itself, and secondly by addressing the request for changing the Council’s rule for that specific day to the Council Fathers instead of towards the Holy Father.
2. An intervention by Cardinal Frings, also a member of the Presidium, confirming the intervention by Cardinal Liénart. He also did this in the name of Cardinal König, who did not belong to the Presidium. Evidently, this meant that these German Cardinals were informed by the French, prior to this first session.
3. The applause that was started by a few Council Fathers, but which grew to include the majority. This occurred despite the fact that it was officially forbidden to applaud.
4. The change of the Council’s rule by the Presidium.
5. The lie by Cardinal Liénart to convince the Pope that his intervention, which was deliberate, premediated and prepared at the evening before was a spontaneous, charismatically inspired act.

All these successive irregularities broke the council’s legal framework, putting Pope John XXIII in a situation of ‘a fait accompli’ and demonstrating a lack of ‘a humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’. Surely, it is obvious that these acts have had direct consequences regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for each individual Council Father involved.

(Return to letter)

 

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 2

 

Among others, these false portrayals become clear by referring to the quote from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII about the “prophets of doom”. Even during the Council, by using the pseudonym ‘Xavier Rynne’, a Redemptorist priest and theology professor had anonymously made such a false portrayals in his book “Letters from Vatican City”, which was internationally published in several languages. He wrote that regarding this quotation, Pope John XXIII especially mentioned here the conservative Curial Cardinals, and that he would agree with the objectives of the dissident liberal Council Fathers. With this he made a statement that still is hugely cherished by the liberal wing, as it was recently referred to in that way by Pope Francis in his Opening Address to the Synod of Youth.

 

For a good understanding to whom Pope John XXIII had referred as the “prophets of doom”, please first consider the full context of this quotation. He stated:

“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand”

 

So, to which of the following groups among the Council Fathers did Pope John XXIII refer to?

 

1. Was it the conservative wing, who accepted to discuss the preparatory documents, which were called by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address as the “initial gift of celestial grace”? At the time of the Opening Address, they had nothing to fear from this Council, and in what way would they have been motivated to predict “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world, by seeking to prevent the Council? Moreover, they had encouraged Pope John XXIII to call this Council.

 

2. Or was it the liberal wing, who disagreed with this “initial gift of celestial grace” and worked on its replacement? They had at the time of the opening address, to fear for a full condemnation of their liberal thoughts by the Council, as this was clearly present in the preparatory documents and even mentioned in the Opening Address itself. Herein Pope John XXIII condemned the ‘uncertain opinions of men’ and the ‘new-born errors’, as well as he acknowledged that there certainly were ‘fallacious teachings, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’.

 

Isn’t it obvious that it must be the liberal wing? Because of their knowledge of the progress of the preparatory work, they had to fear most the outcome of the Council and therefore had every motive to come up with “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world to prevent the Council proceeding as originally planned. At the start of the Council, it was the liberal wing that confronted Pope John XXIII with “a fait accompli” by deliberately breaking the Council’s rule on the first working day of the Council, creating a conditional situation to reject and replace the preparatory documents. Wasn’t it the liberal wing which after the Council made efforts to replace the hermeneutic rule as set by Pope John XXIII’s objectives for the Council? Even despite Pope Paul VI repeated the original hermeneutic rule in his closure address to the Council: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, they changed this rule for a vague and ambiguous terminology “spirit of the council”. In this way they were able to eliminate all undesired conservative influences, including the interventions by Pope Paul VI and the original hermeneutic rule of Pope John XXIII. (Return to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 3

To further explain and clearly illustrate these false portrayals, I beg you to consider the following quotes taken from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII on October 11th, 1962. These were the stated goals and objectives of the Second Vatican Council, were they not?

1. The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously;
2. The Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers;
3. Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.
4. The truth of the Lord will remain forever;
5. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a wellbeing based exclusively on the comforts of life;
6. Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries;
7. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all;
8. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character;
9. To transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Clearly, these quotations from Pope John XXIII are fully in accordance with his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, 1959, in which he condemned in harsh terms anyone who denies the revealed Truth or interferes by the spread of lies or indifferences. It is very obvious from these citations that Pope John XXIII showed absolutely no desire to change one iota of Doctrine. From this Opening Address one can only conclude that he sought the traditional teaching of the Fathers, his ‘recent and not-so-recent predecessors’, so that the primary rule of the Council should be understood as: a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”?. And evidently a “renewal” clearly meant how ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’. Thereby it appears that, as a ‘conditio sine qua none’, the use of the term ‘medicine of mercy’ may never be decoupled from the need to explain 'the validity of its doctrine more fully’ as he said: ‘pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion'. He did not abrogate any condemnations made by his predecessors, rather he spoke about ‘uncertain opinions of men’, ‘newborn errors’, and ‘fallacious teaching, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’ in a way he confirmed the condemnation by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis, of the main principles of the New Theology.

Isn’t it obvious that the Council’s documents with their deliberate ambiguities, contradictory texts and one-sided use of the doctrine cannot be interpreted well, without the correct application of the hermeneutic that considered the full use of the Church’s doctrine: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”? This should be the hermeneutic rule for interpreting and referring to the Second Vatican Council.

(Retour to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 4

To provide you with more factual information on this statement, please, find here the additional document: Vatican II, a Council in threefold?. This document is the extended summary of two other reports. Report 1 is an observational analysis of the evaluation of male religious memberships since 1950 that can be found here , while Report 2 concerns a substantial analysis concerning the general process behind the observations in Report 1 (here ).
(Return to letter)

Quotes to reflect upon (9)

Venerable Pius XII

"I hear all around me innovators who want to dismantle the Holy Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, throw away her ornaments, give her a remorse of her historical past. Well my dear friend, I have the conviction that the Church of Peter must assume her past or she will dig her own grave."

Dissent: Fr René Camilleri follows Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

On behalf of the purity of faith Saint Paul resisted the first Pope, Saint Peter, to the face. This is to be found in Galatians 2:11 "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (DRV). Here Saint Paul made the first public statement of Catholic resistance to the teachings of the Council and of the Popes that are objectively opposed to the Magisterium. The Epistle to the Galatians is a piece of passionate writing, and a note of indignation runs throughout. 

Today, being the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, i.e. the liturgical feast in honour of their martyrdom in Rome, we think it is appropriate to show how a progressive Maltese priest (René Camilleri) follows the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and traditional Catholics, as far as dissent in the Church is concerned.

Who is Fr René Camilleri

Rev. Dr Camilleri read Theology and Philosophy at the University of Malta between 1972 – 1978. In 1979 he furthered his studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome obtaining his Doctorate in Systematic Theology under the tutorship of Profs F. A. Sullivan SJ. In 1988 he took his teaching post in the Department of Fundamental & Dogmatic Theology in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta. He teaches Systematic Theology and his main areas of teaching and research are Ecclesiology, Anthropology, Faith and Culture. In 1994 he was Visiting Scholar at Heythrop College, University of London. He had various assignments on the Diocesan level and is a regular contributor in papers and on the media. He is currently the Archbishop’s Delegate for Catechesis. (Source: University of Malta)

In 2012 Camilleri was perceived as a ringleader in an apparent ‘priest’s revolt’, something that he denied, arguing that dissent is sometimes necessary. Fr Camilleri himself refused (along with other priests) to read out the pastoral letter on IVF during Mass. 

Fr Camilleri on crisis in the Church and dissent

In an interview around 10 years ago, Understanding Malta 2003: a church odyssey, Fr Camilleri had argued that the Church has to come to terms with today’s reality. He stated that:

Fr René Camilleri

"Institutionalised religion in Malta is also in a crisis as it is the rest of Europe. Less people attend mass, less will probably get married through the church, less will give importance to the church’s teachings.

... In the recent past the Maltese church has rested on its laurels just because the majority of people went to mass and participated in religious celebrations.

... I believe that the church has to come to terms with certain things. It needs to deeply reflect on certain issues. We cannot continue to believe that the church is a self-contained reality, as if it were a mother telling its flock what to do. That age has come to an end."

Interestingly enough, the Maltese theologian believed that the Church in its first millennium of existence was very up to date with spiritual and cultural pluralism: 

"The church’s mystics were not the yes-men we often portray them to be. There were mystics who were rebels. However, the age of secularisation and today’s culture has thrust into crisis spirituality imposed from above."

In a more recent article, A different Church, Fr Camilleri admitted that there was a rift opening up within the Church in Malta and spoke openly about it. Relevant quotes follow:

"There is and I am not surprised. As I see it, what is happening is that we have a traditionally monolithic Church being confronted with a fast-changing society. It is quite natural for there to be internal dissent under these circumstances. Hopefully, we will mature as a result.

... You should have internal dissent; it is not something to be afraid of. It is in fact healthy; apart from being in the nature of the Church as an institution. Many might not be aware of this, but without internal dissent there would be no Church at all. It would be dead. There was dissent among the original 12, who were chosen directly by Christ Himself. Look at the history of the Church, with its heresies and its persecutions... what was this, if not dissent?

... when obedience amounts to shunning personal responsibility, then it is no longer a virtue at all. I am a priest. I know I have a vow of obedience. But it does not mean we are puppets. Many people believe we should keep our mouths shut at all times. But that is not obedience...

... The irony is that the Church herself celebrates so many people who were disobedient... Christ was the first to be disobedient: he openly challenged the religious authorities of his time...

... the fact that the Church is not democratic does not mean it should be dictatorial. Vatican Council Two makes it clear that even bishops should listen...

... I've been struggling for over 30 years now to have a different Church. I still believe it will happen one day... though it's not around the corner. The bedrock of this Church are those who believe in spite of everything. Fortunately there are still people who retain their faith in spite of the Church, rather than because of her. I rejoice for these people. They are the Church's hope."

Whether one agrees or not with the Maltese priest, some of his words can easily be applied to the work done by Archbishop Lefebvre, albeit originating for opposite reasons.

Archbishop Lefebvre never argued that nothing in the Church is subject to change. He argued (as did Blessed John Henry Newman in his Essay on Development) that authentic developments must be consistent with what preceded them, and since the Second Vatican Council was not consistent with the pre-conciliar Magisterium on several points, it could not command the assent of Catholics. That is a very different argument. Traditionalism (even of the SSPX variety) is therefore not the same thing as integralism.

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Another important point of difference is the fact that the dissent of Lefebvre is based on the teaching of several doctors of the Church (whose teachings on this subject were more recently gathered by Blessed Newman) which claim that it is a matter of obedience to God to oppose a pope whose actions tend to destroy the Church. 

Thus, if we are to believe the doctors of the Church rather than some self-appointed new 'doctors of apologetics', we really must ask if the dissent of Lefebvre, the SSPX or other traditional Catholics was legitimately trying to avoid the auto-demolition of the Church or if it was merely a desire to be one's own authority. 

In connection with this Archbishop Lefebvre said "I do not want to be the head of a movement. I merely want to do what every Catholic bishop is created to do: transmit the same faith that was transmitted to me."

Further, it's very hard to see what mainstream Catholics mean when they say that traditional Catholics deny Vatican II when so many non-dissenting traditionalists have likewise affirmed that the Council is pastoral rather than dogmatic. In fact several of the major seminaries in Rome have approved such conclusions being made as doctoral theses.

At this stage, it is worth repeating (ad nauseam perhaps) that there are traditionalists who accept the Council, are in union with the Church, and are not part of the SSPX. Criticism of the Council from a traditional perspective is valuable, even necessary, for the Church to remove itself from the post-conciliar disaster.

All disunity, whether canonical or ideological, is bad. But to present the existence of an extremely small minority who are in an irregular canonical situation as an equally grave threat as the ubiquitous presence of liberalism in almost every corner of the Church, even in the hierarchy, is just not accurate. 

Ironically, since the retirement of Benedict XVI many have implied that he was wasting his time in dealing with the SSPX. There are also those who want Summorum Pontificum to be consigned to the dustbin of history as if the Pope's motivation had nothing to do with wanting to restore liturgical sanity in the Church and was simply to appease some radical traditionalists. 

Liberalism and expressions of traditionalism that deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council are both errors. But they are not errors of an equal sort, nor does the Church stand with equal distance from each, nor are the threats from each equivalent.

The hope in Malta is that the more the Tridentine Mass expands, the more souls are exposed to the beauty, the elegance, the glory of more traditional Catholicism.

The Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Teacher

The New Testament passages we have seen several times in the preceding catecheses show that Jesus revealed his intention to give Peter the keys to the kingdom in response to a profession of faith. In it Peter spoke in the name of the Twelve and by virtue of a revelation coming from the Father. He expressed his faith in Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." This assent of faith in the person of Jesus was not a simple attitude of trust, but clearly included the affirmation of a Christological doctrine. 

The role of foundation stone conferred on Peter by Jesus thus has a doctrinal aspect (cf. Mt 16:18-19). The mission of "strengthening his brothers" in faith, also entrusted to him by Jesus (cf. Lk 22:32), has the same meaning. Peter is the beneficiary of the Master's special prayer in carrying out this role and helping his brothers to believe. The words "Feed my lambs.... Tend my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17) do not express a doctrinal mission explicitly, but rather imply it. Tending the flock means providing it with the solid food of the spiritual life, and this food imparts revealed doctrine to nourish the faith.

The Gospel texts demonstrate that the universal pastoral mission of the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, entails a doctrinal mission. As universal pastor, the Pope has the mission to proclaim revealed doctrine and to promote true faith in Christ throughout the Church. This is the integral meaning of the Petrine ministry.

The value of the doctrinal mission entrusted to Peter stems from the fact that, according to the Gospel sources, he shares in Christ's pastoral mission. Peter is the first of those apostles to whom Jesus said: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21; cf. 17:18). As universal pastor, Peter must act in Christ's name and in harmony with him throughout the broad human area in which Jesus wants his Gospel preached and the saving truth brought: the entire world. The Successor of Peter in the mission of universal pastor is thus the heir of a doctrinal munus in which he is closely related, with Peter, to Jesus' mission.

This relationship in no way detracts from the pastoral mission of the bishops, who have among their principal duties that of preaching the Gospel. According to the Second Vatican Council, they are "preachers of the faith...who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice" (LG 25).

Nevertheless, the Bishop of Rome, as head of the episcopal college by the will of Christ, is the first herald of the faith. It is his task to teach revealed truth and to show how it should be applied in human conduct. He has primary responsibility for spreading the faith in the world. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) asserted this about the Bishop of Rome's primacy and fullness of power, when it stressed: "He has the duty to defend the truth of the faith, and it is his responsibility to resolve all disputed matters in the area of faith" (DS 861). Along the same lines the Council of Florence (1439) acknowledged the Roman Pontiff as the "father and teacher of all Christians" (DS 1307).

The Successor of Peter fulfills this doctrinal mission in a continual series of oral and written interventions that represent the ordinary exercise of the Magisterium as the teaching of truths to be believed and put into practice (fidem et mores). The acts expressing this Magisterium can be more or less frequent and take various forms according to the needs of the time, the requirements of concrete situations, the opportunities and means available, and the methods and systems of communication. However, given that they derive from an explicit or implicit intention to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, they are linked to the mandate received by Peter and enjoy the authority conferred on him by Christ.

The exercise of this Magisterium can also take place in an extraordinary way when the Successor of Peter (alone, or with the college of bishops as successors of the apostles) makes an ex cathedra pronouncement on a particular point of doctrine or Christian morals. However, we shall speak of this in future catecheses. Now we must concentrate on the usual, ordinary form of the papal Magisterium, which has a broader extent and an essential importance for the thought and life of the Christian community.

In this regard the first point to be stressed is the positive value of this mission to proclaim and spread the Christian message, to make the authentic teaching of the Gospel known, to respond to old and new human questions about the basic problems of life with the eternal words of revelation. To think that the papal Magisterium consists merely in condemning errors against the faith would be reductive and erroneous. This somewhat negative aspect is doubtless part of his responsibility for spreading the faith, since it is also necessary to defend it against error and deviation. However, the essential task of the papal Magisterium is to explain the doctrine of the faith, and to promote knowledge of the mystery of God and the work of salvation, bringing out all the aspects of the divine plan as it unfolds in human history under the action of the Holy Spirit.

This is the service to the truth that has been primarily entrusted to Peter's Successor, who in the ordinary exercise of his Magisterium is already acting not as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, according to the precise statement of Vatican II regarding definitions ex cathedra (cf. LG 25).

In carrying out this task, the Successor of Peter expresses in a personal way, but with institutional authority, the "rule of faith" which the members of the universal Church (the ordinary faithful, catechists, religion teachers, theologians) must adhere to in investigating the meaning of the permanent content of the Christian faith. This is true also in relation to the discussions arising within and outside the ecclesial community on various points or on the whole of doctrine. Everyone in the Church, especially the theologians, are called to perform this task of continually making it clear and explicit. However, the mission of Peter and his successors is to establish and authoritatively confirm what the Church has received and believed from the beginning, what the apostles taught, what Sacred Scripture and Christian Tradition have determined as the object of faith and the Christian norm of life. The Church's other pastors, the bishops as successors of the apostles, are "strengthened" by the Successor of Peter in their communion of faith with Christ and in properly fulfilling their mission. In this way the Bishop of Rome's Magisterium indicates to everyone the way of clarity and unity, which seems indispensable especially in times of great communication and discussion such as ours.

The mission of Peter's Successor is exercised in three basic ways: first of all, by word. As universal pastor, the Bishop of Rome addresses all Christians and the whole world, carrying out in a full and supreme way the mission Christ conferred on the apostles: "Make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19). Since today the communications media allow his words to reach all nations, he fulfills that divine mandate in a way never before possible. Because the means of transportation allow him personally to visit the most distant regions, he can bring Christ's message to the people of every country, thus carrying out the divine command to "go" in a new and previously unimagined way: "Go...and make disciples of all nations...."

The Successor of Peter also fulfills his mission by writing: beginning with his addresses that are published so that his teaching is known and documented, up to all the documents issued directly--and here the encyclicals, which formally have the value of universal teaching, should be mentioned first--or those issued indirectly by the departments of the Roman Curia which operate under his mandate.

Lastly, the Pope carries out his task as pastor with authoritative initiatives and institutions of a scholarly and pastoral nature: for example, by initiating or fostering activities of study, sanctification, evangelization, charity and assistance, etc., throughout the Church; by promoting authorized and accredited institutes for teaching the faith (seminaries, faculties of theology and religious studies, theological associations, academies, etc.). This is a broad range of initiatives for formation and action under the auspices of Peter's successor.

In conclusion, we can say that the teaching of Peter's successor (as that of the other bishops) contains, in its essence, a witness to Christ, to the event of the Incarnation and the redemption, to the Holy Spirit's presence and action in the Church and in history. In its form of expression it can vary according to the person who exercises it, his interpretation of the needs of the time, his style of thought and communication. However, its relationship to the living truth, Christ, has been, is and will always be its vital force.

This relationship to Christ definitively explains the difficulties and opposition that the Church's Magisterium has always encountered from Peter's day to our own. For all the bishops and pastors of the Church, and especially for the Successor of Peter, Jesus' words are valid: "No disciple is above his teacher" (Mt 10:24; Lk 6:40). Jesus himself exercised his Magisterium amid the struggle between darkness and light, which was the context for the Incarnation of the Word (cf. Jn 1:1-14). That struggle was intense during the apostolic period, as the Master had warned: "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (Jn 15:20).

Unfortunately, it took place too in some Christian communities, so much so that St. Paul felt it necessary to urge Timothy, his disciple: "Proclaim the Word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching...[even] when people will not tolerate sound doctrine" (2 Tim 4:2-3).

What Paul recommended to Timothy also applies to bishops today, and especially to the Roman Pontiff, who has the mission of protecting the Christian people from errors in faith and morals, and the duty of guarding the deposit of faith (cf. 2 Tim 4:7). Woe to him if he should be frightened by criticism and misunderstanding. His charge is to give witness to Christ, to his word, his law, his love. However, in addition to being aware of his responsibility for doctrine and morals, the Roman Pontiff must, like Jesus, be committed to being "meek and humble of heart" (Mt 11:29). Pray that he may be so and will become ever more so.

John Paul II, General Audience, 10 March, 1993