The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century

HE IS RISEN!

No 59

Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes

August 2007

He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

« JESUS, HOW LITTLE KNOWN YOU ARE! » (2)

Last month we undertook reviewing Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth (“Jesus, How Little Known You Are!” He is Risen no 59, pp. 1-12); it marks the centenary of St. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism but in an unequal manner. If he in fact reiterates the condemnation of certain errors, in particular those pertaining to the historicity of Jesus Christ and the Gospels, he repeats certain others, as can be seen in the chapter that we are about to take up, “The Disciples”.

BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT PIUS X

Modernists, St. Pius X wrote « double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error » (no 3).

By following Fr. de Lubac, Pope Benedict XVI incurs this reproach in an impressive way. After having recalled the mission that Jesus gave to His Apostles « to preach with the power to cast out devils (Mk 3.14-15) » the Pope in fact writes: « As Henri de Lubac showed well, the ancient world actually experienced the irruption of the Christian Faith as liberation from fear of the devils… » Notice that it is not a question of their actual ascendancy, but only of fear of them! Freed from this fear, « the world presents itself in its rationality, it comes from Eternal Reason, and this creative Reason alone constitutes the true power over the world and in the world […]. “To exorcise”, to place the world in the light of the ratio that comes from the eternal creative Reason and from its goodness that heals everything by referring to it this is the permanent and fundamental task of Jesus Christ’s messengers. » (p. 198)

Cardinal Ratzinger could only have been charmed by the first words of John Paul II when he appeared on the loggia of St. Peter’s on the day of his election: « Be not afraid! » And today, he thinks that this « permanent task », to deliver the world from fear, a task that was begun twenty centuries ago, remains all the more urgent since there reigns « in the whole world a tainted spiritual climate that threatens humanity in its dignity, indeed in its survival ».

The Twelve are sent not only to deliver the world from its fear, but also to « cure all kinds of diseases and sickness » (Mt 10.1). Now, under the Pope’s pen, this power to cure no longer appears as an intransmissible privilege of the Apostles, but only as « a dimension of the Christian Faith in general » (p. 200) Here, « the mixture » of reason and Faith that St. Pius X denounced finds a particularly striking illustration: « Just as exorcism drives out fear of the devils and passes on to human reason the world that comes from God’s reason, thus the act of curing thanks to the divine power is a call to believe in God and to put the force of reason to the service of curing. » That is to say: thanks to the surprising progress of medicine.

The very notion of miracle has disappeared from the horizon; as a personal intervention of God in history it goes against the ordinary, “rational” course of things.

After the indication of their mission, Benedict XVI presents « the Twelve » as a « very heterogeneous group », representing in advance the Church of all times « precisely because of the diversity of their origins, their temperaments and their mentalities » (p. 203).

There are the “resistance fighters”, Simon “the Zealot” (Lk 6.15) and Judas “Iscariot”, and there is « Levi-Matthew, the publican who works in close collaboration with the established power ». Simon, to whom the Lord was going to give the name Kephas (Rock), « was in charge of a fishing cooperative » on the Lake of Gennesaret and had as his associates his elder brother Andrew, who has a Greek name, and the sons of Zebedee, John and James, to whom the Lord gave the name of Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, because of their impetuous temperament.

There are also the “seventy” disciples « who represent the world in its totality », who received from the “Twelve”, who represent the Jews, the Faith in the God of Israel « which was not a philosophic construction but a gift that was received within the context of a history of the Faith » (p. 204). For Joseph Ratzinger, “sacred history” in the sense of God’s intervention « with arm outstretched », in the sense of universal knowledge, in the real course of events does not count but only the « history of the Faith » of those who believe.

This is because he confuses « faith » and revelation, by virtue of the Modernist principle that St. Pius X perfectly encapsulated: « Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed. » (Pascendi, no 8).

This confusion worsens in the next chapter on the « Message of the Parables ». Nevertheless, Benedict XVI begins by stressing « the limits of the liberal exegesis », which is an expression that designates Modernism in Germany, « unable to take the true measure of the real person of Jesus », who is « the Kingdom of God Himself » (p. 210). Then he turns to the « irritating obstacle: Christ’s words » that answer the questions of His disciples who asked Him to explain to them the meaning of the parable of the sower:

« God revealed the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven to you (i.e. to the circle of the disciples), but for those who are exterior, everything is enigmatic in order that (as it is written) “they see but do not perceive, listen but do not understand, for fear that they be converted and that God forgive them.” (Mk 4.11-12) »

Here the Pope writes « unless they be converted », but the Greek texts say rather « for fear that »

This mistranslation entirely reveals the thought of Benedict XVI, and underlines his opposition to that of Our Lord! In fact, how does our Holy Father the pope overcome the « irritating obstacle » of these words of Christ?

He explains to us that « Jesus’ will is not to hand down to us just any abstract knowledge that would not concern us in the depths of ourselves. First and foremost, Jesus must guide us towards the mystery of God, towards the light that our eyes cannot support and that we flee for this reason. In order to allow us to attain it, He shows us the transparency of the divine light in the things of this world and in the realities that form our everyday life. Through the realities that form our everyday life [for example the seeds in the parable of the sower], He wants to show us the true substance of all things, and thus the true direction that we must take in everyday life to be in the straight and narrow. He shows us God, not an abstract God, but the … active God who enters into our lives and who wants to take us by the hand. Through everyday life, He shows us who we are and thus what we must do. He hands down to us a demanding knowledge, which does not limit itself to a new knowledge, for this is not the essential objective, but a knowledge that transforms our life. It is a knowledge that is offered as a gift and that says to us: God is on the way towards you. But it is also a knowledge that determines a requirement: have the Faith and let yourself be guided by the Faith » (pp. 216-217)

We are in the midst of complete Modernist subjectivism. Against modern agnosticism, according to which only an experimentally verifiable “phenomenon” is real, Benedict XVI sets the Modernist faith, based not on an objective revelation, but on a divine action that is interior to each “believer”. And this on the pretence of not « putting God to the test », by quoting the psalm that opens our Matins every night: « Your fathers tested Me; they tried Me (wanted to put Me to the test) though they had seen My works. » (Ps 94/95.9)

But strictly speaking, the psalm condemns as unjustifiable blindness « the modern concept of reality », according to which « it is impossible to see God show through ». The Jews saw the miracles that God multiplied in order that all might believe: the miraculous crossing of the “Reed Sea”, the bread that fell from the sky in the desert, the water that gushed from the rock…

How then can Christ’s irritating words, which divide His interlocutors into two irreconcilable categories, be understood? According to Benedict XVI, they are only an announcement of His failure: « The prophet fails. His message too strongly contradicts the dominant opinion, the deeply rooted habits of life. Only his failure allows his word to be effective. » (p. 213)

In order to rediscover the true meaning of this Gospel passage, let us reread the Abbé de Nantes, our Father, in his commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. He spells it out by first recalling the context of this oracle of Isaiah in the eighth century B.C.: « The people of Jerusalem were living in impiety. If the prophet clearly announced to them the invasion that threatened them, they would be temporarily stirred, would make an outward show of “converting” in order to obtain their pardon. But it would be a sort of comedy, for these people had reached the stage of impiety where they would have to see their blindness and crime through to their logical end for the punishment to open their eyes. »

Hence comes the « mystery » (mustèrion) or « secret » with which God envelops His revelation.

This word is found once in the Gospel, but it would be employed often in Christian literature, beginning with St. Paul, who used it twenty-five times, and then in the patristic tradition. It is the « mystery of the Faith ». To the Apostles whom He had chosen and who were now His companions, good or bad, because Judas was one of them, Jesus said the whole truth for them to bear witness to it, be it through betrayal. Jesus told them the secret of the Kingdom of God, giving them all the explanations and being surprised that they understood with such difficulty.

But the throng acclaimed Jesus because they expected from Him the Messianic Kingdom. While they expected great material prosperity, combat against the occupier, bread, peace and freedom, revenge on the Romans and on all nations, and world-wide domination, He spoke to them in riddles.

Jesus praised His Father precisely because He had hidden these things from the « wise » and the « learned ». When Benedict XVI enumerated the modern exegetes, he makes us irresistibly think of these same « wise » and « learned » people! To them in the past and to the Pharisees Jesus spoke in parables for the following reasons: that they have no clear response and be unable to convert out of self-interest and enter into His Kingdom in a dishonest manner and that they not institute legal proceedings against Him before the Roman authorities or before Herod. In short, these people who spied on Jesus would be unable to base charges on His all too clear words. His purpose was to conserve His freedom to preach until « the hour » set by the Father… This explains the irritating obstacle.

For want of firmly rejecting Modernism’s agnostic presuppositions, Benedict XVI falls into vital immanence: « Thus the parables are, in the final analysis, he writes, the expression that, in this world God is hidden and that to know God requires of man a total commitment. It is an acquaintance that is one with life itself. » (p. 219)

St. Pius X, as it were, wrote this same proposition in advance of him… but to condemn it! « Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. » (Pascendi, no 7)

Benedict XVI applies these principles of Modernist exegesis, agnosticism and immanence, to « three great accounts in parable form in Luke ». His commentary allows us to see « what consequences follow on from this most absurd doctrine, touching the most sacred Person of the Saviour, the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and His glorious Ascension. »

THE GOOD SAMARITAN (Lk 10.25-37)

« This parable is patently topical, Benedict XVI writes. If we transpose it to the scale of international society, we see that we are concerned by the peoples of Africa, who are being despoiled and plundered. We also see to what extent they are our “neighbours”. » (p. 223)

First remark: This is how the Pope replies to the question of the scribe who asked: « Who is my neighbour? » (Lk 10.29). But he does not answer the question that Jesus asked back: who « proved himself a neighbour to the man who fell into the brigands’ hands? » (Lk 10.36)

In the case of Africa, the answer to the question asked in this way is: the missionary, the soldier, and the colonist proved themselves neighbours to the man who had fallen into the sorcerers’ hands… They brought him Christian civilisation by personifying Jesus Christ, the good Samaritan, in the times of colonisation. But Benedict XVI reverses the roles by confusing the missionaries, soldiers, and colonists with the brigands who have replaced them since decolonisation! « Our way of life, our history, in which we are also involved, contributed to, and still contributes to their plundering ». It is true. But only since the “decolonisation” that drove out the good Samaritan – the French and the Belgians – and delivered Africa over to the Americans and the Chinese!

Second remark: in the name of this purely natural exegesis, not to say materialist, of the parable, Benedict XVI contradicts the exegesis of the Fathers of the Church, who « interpret the parable on the scale of universal history » on the supernatural level. He sums up the interpretation that asserted itself in the entire tradition from the Fathers of the Church to the Second Vatican Council… exclusive:

« Is this man that was stripped and who laid half-dead on the side of the road not the image of “Adam”, of the man par excellence, who truly “fell into the bandit’s hands”? Is it not true that throughout his history man, this creature that is called man, has been alienated, brutalised and exploited? »

In the Fathers’ thinking, humanity in fact had fallen through sin into the hands of the demons of Hell. But this is not what the Pope means. Without warning, he breaks, with this tradition in order to impose on us a Marxist-type, “anthropological” interpretation! This is what the Abbé de Nantes calls the “naturalisation of the supernatural”:

« Humanity in its majority has almost always lived under oppression, the Pope writes. And inversely, are the oppressors the true image of man, or do they rather give a denatured and degrading image?

« Karl Marx described in a drastic fashion “the alienation” of man. Even though he did not succeed in reaching the true depth of alienation due to the fact that his thinking was strictly materialist, he painted a very concrete picture of the man who falls into the bandits’ hands. » (p. 224)

By interpreting the parable of the good Samaritan following Karl Marx, Benedict XVI falls within the scope of the “tradition” that Paul VI inaugurated in his closing speech of the Council (7 December 1965), but he deliberately moves away from the pure Christian tradition that he nevertheless perfectly summarises himself by recalling how, « in the Middle Ages, theologians understood the two indications that the parable gives on the state of the brutalised man as the expression of a fundamental anthropological dimension. It is said about the victim of the attack that he was on the one hand stripped, despoiled (spoliatus), on the other hand thrashed and left half-dead (vulneratus : cf. Lk 10.30). The scholastics related this to the twofold dimension of man’s alienation. He is spoliatus supernaturalibus and vulneratus in naturalibus, they used to say, that is despoiled of the splendour of the supernatural grace that he had received as a gift, and wounded in his nature. » (p. 225)

Two pages written by the Abbé de Nantes, a twentieth-century Doctor of the Church, allows us to return with limpidity and suavity to the pure tradition of the Catholic Faith, in the school of the Fathers of the Church and the theologians of the “Middle Ages”.

“JESUS, THE TRUE GOOD SAMARITAN!”

Who does not know this beautiful parable by heart? A priest passes by, then a Levite, but it is the despised and spurned Samaritan who stops, gives assistance and helps the man in an almost exaggerated manner. His concern manifests an uncommon charity, a surprising tenderness; Jesus even purposely exaggerates the excessiveness of this devotion to a stranger.

With that, how many times have we practiced meditating on fraternal charity! We reflected on the enmity that reigned between the Jews and the Samaritans; this seemed to us the key to the parable. We thus had to give assistance to our enemies, and every man in need immediately became our neighbour. Did not this Samaritan forget century-old reproaches in order to save this despoiled and wounded Jew as he would have done for his own brother?... This interpretation is beautiful; it is not false, but it is nonetheless a new misinterpretation of the Gospel, one of those that deprives the Sacred Book of its mysterious and mystical richness, its hidden Wisdom, in order to give it the appearance of an oriental paradox, of a call to the most insane, the most disarming, and when all is said and done, the most baneful irrealism, for if our enemies are our brothers, what will become of our brothers? I know some who, on the pretext of this parable, organised ambulances and refuges for hunted fellaghas…

Let us follow the divine account to its conclusion: « Which of these three men, do you think, Jesus asked, proved himself a neighbour to the man who fell into the brigands’ hands? » Quite obviously, the other can only reply: « The one who took pity on him »… The answer is simple, but the question is very mysterious in its unexpected reversal. We always make the mistake, by reading too rapidly and without religious attention, of believing that Jesus invites us to conclude that this Jew in dire straits was the neighbour of this good Samaritan. But in actual fact, Jesus wants to lead us to remarking that this Jew could hardly divine from where salvation would come to him and that his neighbour, his brother, his friend, would be this unknown stranger and not the priest or the Levite of his own nation. The neighbour in the parable is not, of course, the brigands who kill and plunder (for this, we would have to wait for our « tortured consciences » of the twentieth century to hear this said from the pulpit of truth), but no more is the man next door, the man of the same race his friend… Who then is it Lord? and what is this mystery? The neighbour is he who, with regard to you, has the supernatural charity of sons of God.

This answer is somewhat disconcerting for many. For twenty years that was how I commented on « You will love your neighbour », in a totally natural and petty manner. I would have explained that the man next door or a relative, the person with whom we live without having chosen is our neighbour. Then, one day, I had to comprehend better the Gospel and understand that my neighbour is designated for me by something other than physical closeness, or relationship by family or race. Like every good “machal”, every oriental enigma in search of a precious and mysterious truth, the parable arouses curiosity instead of satisfying it. Thus, Lord, with this scribe, I ask you anew, humbly: Who is my neighbour?

For their part, the Fathers of the Church had a clear understanding because they were full of Christ. It is still with them that we must read the Gospels, which are replete with the Mystery of Salvation. Even in the simplest figures and accounts, it is Jesus who reveals and manifests Himself in advance; it is from His Majesty and His immense Example that the simplest moral exhortations and remarks of the most human wisdom receive their brilliant light. Later on, when He will have suffered all would become manifest to the eyes of the Faith, that of the Evangelists, of the Fathers, of ourselves, that is if we read with the eyes of the Faith…

He is the good Samaritan. The entire parable implicitly reveals the very work of Redemption, this « familiaritas stupenda nimis », this « philanthropia », excessive love, amazing mercy, incredible familiarity of our God towards a guilty and wounded humanity, the victim of devils and fallen into decline by the excesses of its own crimes. The parable of the prodigal son takes up the theme, but it is in the ancient allegories of the Bridegroom and the unfaithful spouse that the theme is expressed in a climate of perfect modesty. Here Jesus transposes Chapter 16 of Ezekiel, which is still too violent and too immersed in the flesh. God became enamoured of this child, Israel, struggling in her blood, abandoned in the desert… Here He is now, a man who has rushed up from a foreign country, a traveller in this land of Jerusalem where He is unknown, despised and hated. Is it by chance or in search of a mysterious task on which His Heart was set? Here He is in the presence of a man who is lying on the ground, wounded and despoiled, in the ditch on the roadside, while the snickering devils flee with their spoils. He who said: « Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you », He who showed the abyss that separates worldly love and Christian charity, « for if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Even the publicans do as much, do they not? And if you save your greetings for your brethren, are you doing anything exceptional? Even the pagans do as much, do they not? You must therefore be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect » (Mt 5.43-48), it is He who shows to His sinful People such great mercy, such perfect tenderness that it still moves us like something unthinkable, when we read this parable in which He wanted to give us the example so that we do as He did.

This is the God’s Justice about which St. Paul spoke in length to the Christians of Rome; it is totally revealed in advance in this parable before being incarnated in this Flesh handed over and this Blood shed that the Church will adore until the end of the world: « We were still helpless when at His appointed moment Christ died for sinful men. It is not easy to die even for a good man— though of course for someone really worthy, a man might be prepared to die— but what proves that God loves us is that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. » (Rm 5.6-8)

The parable of the good Samaritan is either this, or it is nothing. The good Samaritan for every man who comes into this world is Jesus. But you will say, we knew so for a long time now. Well, add with the Evangelist himself, this good Samaritan, for me while still, a sinner wounded by the devils, is my neighbour!

You ask, o man, who your neighbour is? Whom must you love as much as yourself and with the same love full of the dazzling reverence and love with which you love God? It is Jesus! It is He who did you the greatest good, that no other can ever equal, and you, like the Jew of the parable, you did not think of it, you did not expect it! Although baptised, you perhaps waited twenty years, forty years to stretch your arm towards Him… or, purified by Him, fed by Him, enlightened by Him about everything, perhaps you never reflected on the unfathomable mystery of this Heart, this Heart of God, who so loved men, these men who were not yet of His race, they believed, and had nothing but indifference, scorn, coldness and forgetfulness for Him!

Thus Jesus bursts into my life like this passer-by from Samaria who burst into the life of a Jew who did not expect it and to whom he would not have dreamt of stretching his arms or giving his heart… and then now there is the memory of this bend in the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and of this certain summer evening with a storm brewing when an unknown bushy face of a Samaritan turned his attention to my misery, my wounds, my mouth white with froth, parched with thirst, my eyes already lost in the dereliction of death… « Out of the depths I have cried to You », and now, because of the living water that came down on my lips, because of the holy Oil poured forth on my wounds, because of this very gentle Hand that caresses my cheek, because of this good Voice and this strong arm that hauled me up on this mount, because of this Heart… Jesus, more than a brother… true good Samaritan!

No, the parable of the Good Samaritan is not a simple moral exhortation, but like the other great parables, it is a direct, shattering revelation of Jesus about Himself and about His Kingdom, which is better than the Jewish world from which He has the mission to distinguish it and against which His interlocutors continually object to Him.

He replies to a Doctor of the Law. This man is cooped up in his Judaism. He personifies the conscience of this Chosen People; a connoisseur of his Law, proud of his privileges, he is satisfied and stops at this Covenant that is nevertheless transitory and imperfect. Jesus experiences the fact that he can thus content himself as a personal insult. He can only be wounded interiorly to see these learned and pious Jews return to their lone source of pride, this prophetic Scripture that should lead them to Him and cast them at His feet… Let us enter further into the thoughts of His Heart: Jesus is silently amazed to see them satisfied for so little. Jerusalem is only beautiful in His eyes as the figure of the Church that is to come, but they admire her stones and constructions! This race is only lovable in the Light of its divine election that prepares and announced the new community in which all the sons of God will enter one day. But around Him, He hardly sees anyone who lives in expectation of what is to come…

Even this legal expert, who knows the Law so intelligently, is not disappointed; he does not hunger for anything better than the institutions and the carnal life of the Jewish community! It is his whole world. To love his racial brothers, to ignore other men, that is what counts for him, the very man who nevertheless just quoted by heart the noble words of the Law on love of neighbour! To pay his respects to God, to offer Him ritual sacrifices is his entire religion, and he has not yet felt the burn of Holiness… Once again, Jesus finds Himself before His precise, historical mission, which is to transpose the old Covenant into the order of spiritual Charity and to make the People of Israel and its Law into the Church of Grace. The Epistle to the Romans is entirely contained in this confrontation between the legal expert and Our Lord, for our man is there before Him like the personification of this People that is immobilised at consideration of its rights and withdrawn into itself. Their race and their Law is enough for them, and from these they only draw the idea of their privilege!

But the legal expert questions Jesus in order to justify himself: « Who is my neighbour? » The Master never lets such questions go by without answering with loving concern by means of a full revelation. Jesus, whose mission is to reveal Himself, cannot not be moved by a question that obscurely touches His mystery. Already, to the Samaritan woman who spoke to Him about the Messiah, He had divulged His secret: « I who am speaking to you, I am He. » To the legal expert who also questioned Him: « Who is my neighbour », Jesus wants to reply: « I who am speaking to you, I am your neighbour. »

Immediately this answer unveils the entire New Covenant, the entire mystery of Salvation and the new reality of the Church. The man lying in the ditch whom the devils had shorn of everything gained no advantage from being Jewish. This indifference, this betrayal of the bonds of blood by the priest and the Levite was necessary. It is not gratuitous malevolence on the part of Jesus. But it was necessary to force this Doctor of the Law to recognise that racial solidarity and scrupulous observance of formalist precepts have never been able to extricate man from his spiritual wretchedness. It was necessary to wait still, and it was then, in the parable as in the reality of history, that the Stranger passed. « It is by grace that you have been saved », St. Paul commented. God’s ancient election that fell upon Abraham gradually effaced itself to the sole advantage of a community bound by ties of ancestry in which reciprocal obligations and a certain social code prevailed over the expectation of Salvation. Religion had become natural justice and the solidarity of clan. The arrival of this Stranger brings us back to the reign of grace. Henceforth, life comes to us by the Blood, the Water, and the Spirit. It reaches and renews all flesh!

Did the Doctor of the Law thrill at this revelation that the Author and Doctor of Love made to him concerning Himself, at the announcement of this living and life-giving Church where all the personal relationships are based on the initial generosity of the Son of God who heals and saves, and on the gratitude of those who have found in Him their good Samaritan? Did he feel joy at the definition of a new supernatural love that has come from beyond us and drives us in turn towards others with a view to being their helpful neighbour? Alas! It is only very late, and the number of those among the Jews who with St. Paul will dare consider abandoning the Synagogue of Pride in order to enter the Church of Charity as liberation and a rebirth is small!

We compare ourselves to the innkeeper who was to take great care of the wounded man and whom the Good Samaritan generously pays, making him kindly recommendations. Christians full of love and gratitude towards Jesus who saved them aspire to imitate Him in His charity. In turn they aspire to become like Him and with Him become the neighbour of other abandoned and unfortunate human beings. It is in vain that Judaism and the philosophers made every effort to preach fraternity and to find reasons for being generous. This virtue always remained unfounded in egoism and individual independence… Everyone making himself the centre of his universe and thus unable to imagine sacrificing himself for others. Everyone wanted to be free and only saw himself obliged to serve others to the extent of his goodwill! But with a parable, Jesus just completely changed these human views. We get Life from a Good Samaritan, from a Neighbour who is hereafter always nearby and who arouses in our hearts the first, irresistible movement of Charity: gratitude. It is because we ourselves are objects of an immense charity that it seems natural to us to pursue in turn this charity and to extend it to others to whom we will become neighbours and friends by our gift.

« Go, and do the same yourself », Jesus’ conclusion must be taken in this broad sense, an echo of the refrain from Deuteronomy on the Law that must be « put into practice ». Well, Jesus says, consider things thus hereafter! Escape from this egoism of a man cooped up in his rights and righteousness; abandon the Jewish arrogance of racial solidarity that is without love and without generous openness. Leave this imperfect religion that is turned in to a community of interests of which the God of Heaven is the sponsor. See with the eyes of the heart this Church, this Kingdom already begun in your midst: the Living God is before you. Happy are they who see what you see, who hear what you hear!

He bends down towards you His brethren, He draws close in order to give you this Life that no one can create or conquer by his own strength or demand in the name of his own right… A new humanity is going to appear, born of the unique grace coming forth from the pierced Heart and animated by an infinite gratitude towards the dear Crucified neighbour. With no racial boundary, with no personal pride, not disappointing like the old Covenant, this Church will be perpetuated by the work of her own children who, in turn, will want to be the neighbour of someone else!

Enter into the Church, leave your synagogues: stop choosing and searching for who is your neighbour, to whom you will feel the obligation to give. This charity born of pride is poisoned and sterile. Rather see who was in your life the neighbour who saves and cures, consoles and comforts. Admire with gratitude the beauty, the greatness of the gifts that, without merit, you have received in abundance. Enter into this immense community of charity, grow in it, discover in it all the splendours issued from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

When you will have discovered that you are nothing other than the object of a Mercy, the wounded man saved by the Good Samaritan and cherished by charitable hospitallers, your heart will irresistibly become in turn the neighbour for others, whoever they may be, the most abandoned, the most unfortunate. Charity will be born in you, without philosophical demonstration or legal obligation. The parable will be fulfilled in you as it has been in so many others, multiplying the charity of Christ and of His Church.

Georges de Nantes, Letters to My Friends Vol.° 1 (1956-1962), nos 91 and 93, August and September 1961.

THE PRODICAL SON (Lk 15.11-32)

The prodigal son « squandered his inheritance. He simply wanted to enjoy life, make the most of it and have it, he believed, “in abundance”. He did not want to be subject to any commandment, to any authority. He sought radical freedom; he only wanted to live according to his own rule, without being subject to any exterior requirement. He enjoyed life and felt totally autonomous. Is it difficult for us to recognise therein the spirit of our times, this spirit of rebellion against God and against the divine Law? The abandoning of everything that had formed until now our foundations, and the choice of our unlimited freedom? » (pp. 228-229)

To ask the question is to answer it. The result is this: « Totally free man has become a pitiful slave ».

Despite his concern about respecting the texts, Pope Benedict XVI then writes: « This is where the “turnaround” takes place. The prodigal son understands that he has lost, that it is in his father’s home that he was free, and that the servants of his father are freer than he who thought that he was totally free. » (p. 229)

The text says nothing of the sort; there is no question of “liberty” therein, but only of “bread”, nothing more! « Then he came to his senses and said: “How many hired servants in my father’s house abound with bread, and I perish here with hunger!” » (Lk 15.17)

The anachronism is glaring. It leads to twisting the meaning of this parable in favour of the “cult of man”, in line with John Paul II’s encyclical Dives in Misericordia: « His turnaround, his “conversion”, consists in recognising this, in understanding his own alienation from man, who has truly left for an “alien land” and who has become a stranger to himself. His “conversion” now consists in returning to himself. » (p. 230)

Yet, St. Luke tells us that he returned to his father and not to « himself »: « I will leave this place and go to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against Heaven and against you. » (Lk 15.18) But, according to Benedict XVI, once again applying the principle of vital immanence, the “conversion” of the prodigal son consists in “returning to himself”, and it is within himself that he « finds inscribed the principle that orients him towards the father, towards the true freedom of a “son”. »

The father « sees that his son has found the path of true freedom ». Ah? That is news to us! for St. Luke only tells us: « While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was moved with pity and running to him clasped him in his arms and kissed him tenderly. » (Lk 15.20)

The elder brother unexpectedly arrived and flew into a rage at the sound of « the feast that was taking place in his house […]. That undoubtedly shows that he has also secretly dreamed of unlimited freedom [?], that, in his heart of hearts, his obedience made him bitter, and that he knows nothing of the grace of being in the fold, of the true freedom that is his as son. “You, my child, are always with me” the father said to him, “and all I have is yours” (Lk 15.31) […]. The parable is interrupted here without saying anything about the elder brother’s reaction. »

The elder brother represents the discontented Pharisees and the scribes who waxed indignant to see Jesus showing goodness towards sinners (Lk 15.2). It is therefore with good reason that « the Fathers related the theme of the two brothers to the relationship between the Jews and the pagans ». But the Pope immediately corrects this exegesis in a “conciliar” sense: « The interpretation that refers to the Jews is not unfounded as long as it is taken as it appears in the text: a delicate attempt on the part of God to convince Israel, an attempt that is totally in God’s hands »… Would the Pope be forgetting that everything depends also on the response that will be made by the son, i.e., Israel, to this divine « attempt »? Nevertheless, under the pretext that, in the parable, « the father does not question the elder son’s faithfulness, and also that he expressly confirms him in his state of son: you, my child, are always with me and all I have is yours. » Benedict XVI points out that the Fathers’ interpretation « becomes erroneous when it is construed as a condemnation of the Jews,… who are in no way in question in the text » (p. 235).

Of course, everything is left on hold: « He was angry then and refused to go in. His father came out to plead with him. » (Lk 15.28) What will the son do? Will he finally enter into the banqueting hall? The whole question, which remains unresolved, is there. His eternal fate is at stake. But the Pope does not seem concerned about it. Rather he turns the pointed polemical remark back, following Fr. Grelot, against « pious men », against « those who are “in right” with God, to use Grelot’s phrase ».

We recognise therein the detestable spirit of our Aramaic professor at the Institut catholique de Paris, the forerunner of the “conciliar spirit”.

Nevertheless, let us listen to the Holy Father’s lesson, which is always good to hear: « By this parable, the Father speaks to us through Christ, to us who have remained in the fold, in order that we also may truly convert and that we may rejoice in our faith. » (p. 236)

Let us add, with the unanimous tradition from St. Peter to John XXIII…exclusive: And let us pray for the conversion of the Jews!

THE RICH MAN AND POOR LAZARUS (Lk 16.19-31)

« While the texts referring to the two brothers remain open and end with a question and an invitation, here, the fate of each of the two figures is given as irrevocable. » (p. 237) That is to say that their fate is determined, without remission. Heaven for poor Lazarus, Hell for the rich man. It is a terrible warning!

Lazarus personifies the « poor » man whose plaint the Psalms give forth. They paint the portrait of the « rich » whom they must face: « I was jealous of the arrogant; I saw the prosperity of the wicked. Until their death, they lack nothing, they enjoy perfect health; they escape from the suffering of man, from the blows that strike mortals. » (Ps 72 / 73.3-5)

The suffering man just turns to God and suddenly awakens as from a dream. He understands what true happiness is: « I am always with You, with You who have held me by my right hand… » (Ps 72.23)

This is precisely where the Lord wants to lead us by means of this parable. How do we arrive there? By believing in Jesus, « the true Lazarus », who is risen: « To believe in Him, in this great divine sign, and to follow Him, this is what this parable – which is more than a parable – invites us to do. For it speaks about reality, the decisive reality of history par excellence. » (p. 243)

But Heaven? Hell? They have vanished, have been dispersed like vain imaginations! We already discovered last month Benedict XVI’s affirmation, according to which « Jesus confines Himself to the representations current in the Judaism of His time. […] without formally making it His teaching concerning the beyond. » What then is Jesus’ teaching formally concerning the beyond, according to the Pope? It is this:

« Even if the text does not say so expressly, we can undoubtedly say, on the basis of the Psalms that, in this world already, the rich man was an empty-hearted man who, while revelling, sought only to smother the void within him: in the beyond, the only truth that manifested itself was the one that already presided here below. » (p. 240) Vital immanence…

After these chapters, which were upsetting to read under the pen of the man whom the Abbé de Nantes hoped to see « save the Church », we find once again the man whose « great theological faith » motivates our hope in the following chapter where he defends the truth of the witness of John.

THE WITNESS OF JOHN

According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Face to Face of Jesus with His Father is a “secret”. On the other hand, « in John, the divinity of Jesus manifests itself openly » (p. 245). Not in the hidden manner of the parables, but in « great discourses full of imagery » that were pronounced not in Galilee, but in Jerusalem. To go from there to make it into the « late theological reconstruction », of a mythical Jesus, a « gnosis », there is but one step, which was cheerfully taken by Rudolf Bultmann, the darling of even Catholic exegesis during the second half of the twentieth century. Benedict XVI re-establishes the truth, which was known long ago and is verified by modern research:

« The fourth Gospel is based on extraordinarily precise knowledge of the places and the time. It can only come from someone who had a good knowledge of Palestine in the time of Jesus. » (p. 247)

Who is this author? There is absolutely no doubt about the answer to this question. One only has to read the account of the Passion: « He that saw it has given testimony that you also may believe. His testimony is true and the Lord knows that he says true. » (Jn 19.35) This eyewitness was no other than the disciple about whom it is said earlier on that he stood close to the Cross and that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved (Jn 19.26). The fourth Gospel ends on this affirmation that we have no reason to deny: « It is this disciple who bears witness to these facts and who wrote them and we know that his testimony is true. » (Jn 21.24) It is beyond suspicion because it originates in the best source, the Pope remarks. It is said, in fact, that during the Last Supper, this disciple « leaned back against Jesus’ chest » (Jn 13.25). Benedict XVI compares this expression with « the end of John’s prologue in which he says about Jesus: “No one has ever seen God. The only begotten Son, who is in the Bosom of the Father, has revealed Him.” (1.18). Just as Jesus the Son, knows the mystery of the Father because he is in His Bosom, the Evangelist, due to the fact that he leaned back against His chest, was able to draw his knowledge, in some manner from the Heart of Jesus. » (p. 249)

The tradition unanimously identifies this “beloved disciple”, the author of the Gospel, with John, the son of Zebedee. « Is it possible that he, the fisherman from the Lake of Gennesaret, was able to write this sublime Gospel that, by its visions, plunges us into the depths of God’s mystery? Could he, this fisherman from Galilee, have been connected with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem, with its language and its way of thinking, as the Evangelist was in fact? Could he have been related to the family of the high priest, as is suggested by the text (cf. Jn 18.15)? » (p. 251)

Most assuredly! Fr. Cazelles, who was our professor of Old Testament and biblical Hebrew at the Institut catholique de Paris, whom Benedict XVI quotes, « showed that such identification was altogether plausible. The priestly castes officiated on a rota system twice a year, on a basis of one per week. After having finished his service, the priest returned to his own area: he also commonly engaged in a profession that allowed him to earn a living. Moreover, it is evident from the Gospel that Zebedee was not a simple fisherman, but he employed several day labourers. This is why it was possible for his sons to leave. »

The Pope quotes an article that was published in 2002, in German, by Fr. Cazelles in the review Communio:

« Zebedee could most definitely have been a priest, all the while having his property in Galilee, where fishing in the lake helped him to earn his subsistence. He probably had only a pied-à-terre near by or in the district of Jerusalem that was inhabited by the Essenes. » (p. 251)

In this article, Fr. Cazelles agrees with our own conclusions that were published shortly after the Congress that was held in the Catholic University of Eichstätt in Bavaria in 1991 (CCR n° 260, p. 1-6 and CCR n° 261, p. 13-22). The Pope would have honoured his compatriots by quoting their works, the substance of which these lines from Cazelles summarise:

« This meal during which one of the disciples leaned back against Jesus’ chest was held in a place that was located, in all likelihood, in the district of the city that was inhabited by the Essenes, in the “pied-à-terre” of the priest Zebedee, who left “the upper room” to Jesus and the Twelve. »

The decisive argument, however, in favour of the historicity of the fourth Gospel is above all internal, as the Abbé de Nantes showed in his literal commentary (“The Testimony of John at the Trial of Jesus Christ, Son of God, The World’s Greatest Trial”, community retreat, 1990, CCR n° 234, pp. 10-14; CCR n° 235, pp. 4-19; CCR n° 306, pp. 3-22; CCR n° 310, pp. 9-26; CCR n° 311, pp. 7-18; CCR n° 316, pp. 7-12)

What a happy surprise to see our Holy Father the Pope adopt this argument as his own in a few lines! In reply to the theory according to which the fourth Gospel is the fruit of a subsequent theological elaboration, the work of a “Johannine school”, « it is nevertheless necessary to notice, Benedict XVI writes, that according to the very text of the Gospel, we are dealing less with Jesus’ internal didactic conversations than with his conflict with the aristocracy of the Temple, in which His trial unfolded in advance. » (p. 254)

Does this mean that « Jesus’ speeches that were related must, as it were, have the characteristics of minutes recorded with a microphone in order to be recognised as “historically” authentic »? Of course not! Because when remembering what he had heard, what he had seen with his own eyes, what his hand had touched: the Word of life, St. John « entered into the profound dimension of what happened and he saw what initially was not visible from the exterior. But, therein he did not distance himself from reality, he understood it more profoundly and he thus saw the truth that was concealed in the fact. » (p. 259)

Benedict XVI establishes here a very rich comparison between « what John says in his Gospel concerning the fact of this memory, which becomes understanding and a path towards “the complete truth” », and « which Luke relates concerning the memory of Jesus’ Mother ».

Countless are the witness that the personal pronoun « we » covers in St. John: disciples, crowds, Jewish officials. But before all of them, there was Mary who had « seen » throughout a hidden and obscure life, « the eternal life » manifest itself in Her gentle and humble Child. From the day of the Annunciation, She, before all the inspired authors of the New Testament, was led by the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of Truth. It is She who explains to us « the great images of John’s Gospel » to which Benedict XVI has consecrated his most beautiful pages.

THE WATER, THE WINE AND THE BREAD.

« During the march through the desert, Moses gave Israel bread from heaven and water from the rock. » (p. 271)

John saw water come forth from the pierced Heart of the crucified Jesus, with the Blood. In his first Epistle, he insists: « not only water, but water and blood… »

The water: in Jesus « all the rivers of Scripture mingle » announcing a new Temple under the threshold of which emerge the living waters to purify « the saline earth, make life mature and bear fruits in abundance » (p. 273.)

« Whoever examines history attentively can see this river that throughout time flows from Golgotha, from the crucified and risen Jesus. Wherever this river flows, he can see how the earth is purified, how fruit trees grow, how life teems, the true life, from the source of love that gave and gives itself. » (p. 274)

The Blood: it is surprising that the Pope did not even write this word in the abundant exposition that he dedicated to « the grapevine and the wine ». Nevertheless, is not all this « wine » destined to become the Blood of the Lord by the words of consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass each time that, « in answer to the Church’s prayer, the Lord anticipates in it His return » as at Cana He anticipated His “Hour” in answer to His Mother’s prayer?

An admirable Mystical Page of our Father fills this gap by making the connection between the Grapevine that is Our Lord and His Precious Blood that was shed under the wine press of the Cross (opposite, p. 11)

The Bread: « Moses gave bread from the sky. God Himself had fed Israel on the move with heavenly bread. For a people whose great number suffered from hunger and the fatigue of daily work, this was the promise of promises, which in a certain fashion concentrated all expectations: the end of all destitution, a gift that would appease everyone’s hunger forever. » (pp. 291-292)

The Pope shows that the inspired authors had drawn a loftier lesson from the miracle of the manna, according to which the true bread from Heaven that fed Israel was the word of God: « In Sapiential literature, wisdom, which is accessible and present in the Law, appears as “bread” » (p. 294) Benedict XVI refers to the Book of Proverbs, in which personified Wisdom appeals to fools: « Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared! » (Pr 9.5) i.e. the Law, the Torah, God’s word that leads to life.

In Jesus, « the Law became Person »: the Word became flesh. But Jesus did not content Himself with that. When He became one of us, « emerging as it were from Himself, He “flows”, He gives Himself to us ». He announces: « The bread that I shall give is My flesh, for the life of the world » (Jn 6.51), through sacrifice, by immolating His Body and shedding His Blood, the price of our salvation. « Jesus became man in order to give Himself and substitute Himself for the animal sacrifices, which could be no more than the manifestation of an expectation, but not a response. » (p. 296)

THE BLOOD OF THE BUNCH OF GRAPES

O sweet Jesus, our Saviour still today, and tomorrow our Judge, I heard only one of Your words this Good Friday. It was at the eighth Station of the Cross, “Jesus consoles the women of Jerusalem”. This consolation pierced my heart. These Jews, more certain of the salvation of Jerusalem than of anything else are not consoled by You but are devastated by You! And us, You frighten! We know what happened to them and their children: the Roman legions, the city besieged, famine, thousands of people crucified on the surrounding hills, and those mothers devouring their children… What will happen to us impenitent sinners, therefore, in this world and the next? Listen, Christians, to the prophetic words of the Son of God about to die:

« Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me. Weep rather for yourselves and for your children. For behold the days are surely coming when people will say: Blessed are those who are barren, the wombs that have never borne children, and the breasts that have never suckled! Then they will begin to say to the mountains: fall on us! to the hills: Cover us! For if that is what is done to the green wood, what will be done to the dry? »

You see how the green wood is treated. No, there is no question of it being thrown on the fire, a useless gesture. Even green, it would burn and nothing would remain of it. The enigmatic words of Good Friday in St. Luke are illuminated by St. John in his account of Your Eucharistic discourse of Maundy Thursday. You are the true vine and Your chosen ones are the branches; your Heavenly Father is the vine dresser. This parable given yesterday is what You are living today on Your Calvary. The stake is set up; the green vine will soon be tied to it without breaking any of its essential structure. Then, for it to produce abundant fruit, the vine dresser will prune it, crop it and cut five deep wounds in it, whence the crimson red blood will flow in pain. It is thus that God throws His only Son into the furnace of suffering and of death, His Son, His chosen vine, Vinea mea electa! And in the centuries to come that will also be the fate of the branches who are cut short and wounded to death with life-giving wounds:

« Did you not know that it was necessary for Christ to suffer before entering into His glory? »

It had to be! A terrible expression. A general order governs our destiny and rules all things with number, weight and measure, even the price of our crimes. Revolt, malice and vice of every kind are insults to God that weigh heavily in His just scales. For peace to return there must be reparation for sin; there has to be a redemption. The Son of God Himself bowed beneath this law: there is no remission here below without shedding of blood; there is no merit in oblation without immolation, and no fruit that is not brought to birth in suffering. Beneath the eyes of these weeping women of Jerusalem, You penetrated the depth of suffering and of dereliction. You have to equal this mass of sin that crushes You, if only to teach us dear Jesus, how great are our crimes. Daughters of Jerusalem, shudder at the sight of this chastisement that befalls the innocent, but admire its fruit. It is through these wounds that we shall be healed, if we will. Lifted up on the Cross, behold Him bound, tortured, and cut like a vine. But its fruit is the world’s salvation, its flower is the Church, and the myriads of grains are the elect.

What will be the fate of the dead wood? You are the green wood, and they crucified You. The treatment inflicted on the dry wood will be worse, You say. Could it be worse than the Cross? The Roman soldiers will have no more respect or concern for the inhabitants of Jerusalem than either of them had for their divine Victim, and would the demons have any compassion on men? Ah! How hideous is the fate of those who perish far from You and who go off to suffer an eternity of useless torments. For You weep over all, dear Jesus, over all those who perish far from You:

« Anyone who does not remain in Me is thrown away like a branch and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt. » (Jn 15.6)

O Son of Man, haunted by the reality of Hell and its horror, Your words reveal to me that there is worse than death on the Cross: there is falling into eternal fire; without hope and without fruit is the man who is separated from You. I am seized with dread when I hear You recall this infinite wretchedness, turning the compassion of the daughters of Jerusalem towards themselves, to their children, and to us too, poor sinners threatened with eternal damnation…

« Just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth! » (Mt 13.40-43)

I no longer wish to weep over You, my divine crucified Saviour, until I am snatched from sin. I shall weep over myself, I shall have pity on myself, me, the dry wood, exposed to a passion worse than Yours. But through grace, O Jesus my Saviour, grant me in this world not consolation but desolation, not ease and sweetness but pain and suffering, that at least which the Heavenly Father grants to His chosen ones, as to the green and fertile wood, for what would it profit me to suffer if it is not with You, for my salvation and that of my brothers?

(Georges de Nantes, Pages Mystiques, April 1970. , published CCR 311 July- August 1996, p. 11)

THE SHEPHERD

« “To pasture” is an image that represents the office of governing. From this image, the concern for the weak is part of the tasks of the just sovereign. » (p. 299)

In the Old Testament, the prophet Ezekiel denounced the « egoistic shepherds », and promised « that God Himself would seek His flock in order to take care of them »

This is what Jesus did: « In the face of the discontentment of the Pharisees and the scribes that was provoked by the meal that He took with sinners, the Lord related the parable of the ninety-nine sheep who remained home and of the one that was lost and that the shepherd would seek in order to take him with great joy on His shoulders and bring him back. Through this parable, Jesus said to his adversaries: have you not read the word of God in Ezekiel? I am only doing what God announced as true shepherd: I will go to seek my lost sheep, and I will bring the lost back into the fold. » (p. 300)

He did so in a « surprising », manner, the Pope observes, although it had been announced by the prophet Zechariah: « “I am going to strike the shepherd so that the sheep may be scattered”, » Even more mysterious is the prophecy of the Second Isaiah in which the shepherd becomes a lamb. With Jesus, « all is clear: He who is killed and who saves is Jesus Christ, the crucified » (p. 302). John the Baptist said it first: « Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. » (Jn 1.29)

Jesus did not begin by saying: « I am the fair Shepherd 1 », but « I am the gate of the sheepfold » (Jn 10.7), « much to our surprise », the Pope said. After having quoted Jesus’ words when He said: « Anyone who does not enter the sheepfold through the gate but climbs in some other way is a thief and a bandit. He who enters through the gate is the shepherd of the flock » (Jn 10.1-2), the Pope writes: « We must undoubtedly understand that this means that Jesus lays down here the criterion for the shepherds of His flock after His Ascension to the Father. » (p. 303) Of course! And let us point it out, in a way absolutely contrary to interfaith dialogue in general, which the Council inaugurated, and to dialogue with the Jews in particular. In reply to the Jews who were obstinate in their blindness, Jesus in fact calls on those who belonged to Him to « go out » with Him. From where must they « go out »? From the « sheepfold » which is designated in Verse 16 by the Greek word aulè, « forecourt »: from the « forecourt » of the Temple of Jerusalem as though in a new Exodus. The break between the synagogue and the new community that was formed around Christ by those who listen to His voice and follow Him dates from that day. Where does “He lead them”? He leads them to where He is, where He will soon be! It suffices for the sheep to be gathered around the Shepherd, to look towards Him and to listen to His voice, as He Himself is turned completely towards His Father.

« That is something absolutely new, the Abbé de Nantes explained: a community is born, founded not on race, nor on a land, nor even on the worship of Yahweh-God in His Temple, but on the Person of Jesus alone, the “fair Shepherd” of the sheep. Jesus is both the “gate” that opens onto the “forecourt”, and the “Shepherd”. Those who do not enter by the gate are the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees: they exercise a usurped authority, like thieves and bandits. Yet, Jesus enters through the gate, that is to say, through Himself, through the testimony He gives of Himself. He is the shepherd. He is at home, and the gatekeeper lets him in.

« The gatekeeper is Yahweh, the God of Moses. It is He who opens to the Shepherd and, at the same time, gives the sheep an attraction (Jn 6.44), an instinctive and loving docility to hear and to follow the unanswerable divine voice, which calls them one by one and leads them out of Jerusalem. » (Georges de Nantes, The Testimony of John, CCR n° 306, p. 14)

Unfortunately neglecting this all too obvious lesson, Benedict XVI enumerates « four essential aspects » of the image of the shepherd. First it contrasts with that of the thief who comes « “to steal, to kill and to destroy” (Jn 10.10), seeing the sheep as something that belongs to him, that he possesses and that he exploits for himself. The only thing that matters is his own person; everything exists uniquely for him. » (pp. 304-305) The bad shepherds, priests and false prophets of all times, who « fed themselves » instead of pasturing the flock (Ez 34), were brigands and thieves, in the time of Jeremiah (Jr 2.8), Ezekiel or Zechariah (Zc 11.4-7); all the more so the high priests, the scribes and the Pharisees in Jesus’ time! I do not dare to pursue the application of this « essential aspect » of things to our sad post-conciliar times…

The Pope continues: « It is the contrary for the good Shepherd. He does not take life; He gives it: “I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full.” (Jn 10.10) »

It is in fact the « second theme of the discourse of the Shepherd in which the newness appears […], and this is so not owing to new ideas, but by virtue of a new event: the Incarnation and the Passion of the Son: “The true Shepherd lays down life for His sheep.”(Jn 10.11) »

David, who pursued the lion that had taken one of his sheep « seized him by the hair at his jaw and struck him down and killed him » (1 S 17.34-35). While Jesus would pay with His life the salvation of His sheep. What is this mystery? If the Shepherd gives His life, how will the sheep be saved?

It is because Jesus gives His life « in order to take it up again », as He announced: « No one takes it from Me; I lay it down of My own free will. » The Jews had plotted Jesus’ death from the beginning of His ministry. It was in vain. No one has the power to take His life by surprise. He has to give His consent: « As I have the power to lay it down, so I have the power to take it up again; such is the command I have received from My Father. » (Jn 10.17-18)

« Here we have the interpretation of what takes place in the institution of the Eucharist, the Pope explains. Jesus transforms the violent and exterior act of the crucifixion into an act of the free gift of oneself for others. Jesus does not give something, He gives Himself. This is how He gives life. We must go back to this idea and deepen it when we approach the Eucharist and the Paschal event. » (p. 307)

« A third essential theme of the discourse of the Shepherd is the mutual knowledge of the Shepherd and the flock: “I am the fair Shepherd; I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for My sheep.” » (Jn 10.14-15)

We are obviously in the heart of the supernatural: in His love for His sheep, Jesus gives His life in sacrifice, out of obedience to the Father, but in the fullness of His power to rise from the dead, in order to take the head of the sheep and to “lead” them.

But here the Pope transposes to the natural level in terms that discourage commentary:

« It is only in God and from God that we have an accurate knowledge of man. A self-knowledge that encloses man in the empirical and pragmatic dimension does not succeed in encountering the true profundity of man. Man knows himself only insofar as he learns to understand from God, and he knows others only insofar as he sees God’s mystery in them. » (p. 309)

Benedict XVI comes to the « last great theme of the discourse of the Shepherd, that of unity: “There are other sheep that I have that are not of this fold, and I must lead these too. They too will listen to My voice, and there will be only one flock and one Shepherd.” »

The Greek word that is translated by « sheepfold » more accurately means forecourt (aulè), as we have said. The « other sheep » come from other « forecourts »: they designate the temples of the pagans where our fine Shepherd also has sheep, scattered throughout all the nations of the world. He must go and look for them in order to free them from their false religions and “lead” them too, by joining them with the flock of Israel, thus gathering them all into one Church, behind its Head and Pastor. This is the obvious meaning of Our Lord’s words.

By ignoring this « aspect », which however is « essential », the Pope preaches an “interfaith” gnosis that is consonant with the Council’s doctrine:

« The Logos who became man in Jesus is the Shepherd of all men, for they were all created by the unique Word. In all their dispersals, they are one beginning with Him and oriented towards Him » (p. 311; cf. G. S. 22, 2)

This is not precisely what the Gospel reveals. For the time being, the mystery of the Son of God fulfilling the mission He received from His Father, as it is revealed more fully, once again divides “the Jews”, at least the notables, for the people are won over and this is what worries the leaders, the officials. This division will spread to the whole of humanity: not all men will receive the life that Jesus handed over for them, not all will be His sheep.

PETER’S CONFESSION

« Matthew and Mark situate the event in the region of Caesarea Philippi (today Banyas), at the source of the Jordan […]. Tradition has located the scene at a place where a rock face overhangs the waters of the Jordan, which illustrates in a striking manner the words “You are Peter; and upon this rock…” »

Once again the Pope does great honour to Fr. Grelot by going to the trouble of expounding at length his impious theory according to which Mark’s version, « You are the Messiah », is alone historical, while that of Matthew, « You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God » (Mt 16.16), « are probably post-paschal words, for – and it is the opinion of a great number of exegetes – to formulate his faith in these terms would only be possible after the Resurrection. »

According to Grelot, Peter’s confession of faith as Mark mentions it would be « a “Jewish” profession of faith in the strict sense, in which Jesus, in accordance with the ideas of the time, is considered a political Messiah. Only Mark’s account is logical and coherent, for only political messianism can explain the fact that Peter protests against the announcement of the Passion, which provokes a strong reaction from Jesus, like when Satan had offered Him power: “Get behind Me, Satan! because the way you think is not God’s way but man’s.” (Mk 8.33) According to Grelot, this sharp rebuke is only coherent if it is equally directed against the confession of faith that preceded it and that Jesus would have also dismissed as erroneous. » (p. 322)

Benedict XVI simply points out that « there is no trace of this refusal in the text. » Jesus merely contents Himself with forbidding that it be said everywhere that He is « the Messiah » before the events of His Passion and His resurrection, for « the true Messiah is the “Son of man”, who is condemned to death and who, thus, can only enter into His glory as the risen One three days later » (pp. 325-326).

In fact, after having promised to Peter that he would be the « rock » on which He would build His Church, Jesus began to reveal to the Twelve that He would have to suffer His Passion in Jerusalem, experience abjection and a cruel death, before rising from the dead. The same Peter « rebuked » Christ: « Ah ! Lord, that will not be ! » He incurred this dreadful answer : « Get behind Me, Satan! You are an obstacle in My path [skandalon], because the way you think is not God’s way, but man’s! » (Mt 16.23)

Here Benedict XVI makes a curious comparison: it makes one « think, he says, of the scene that follows Peter’s confession in which Peter tried to turn the Lord away from the way of the cross and in which the Lord said to him: “Get behind Me”, in order to call then on the others to take up their cross and to follow Him (cf. Mk 8.33). » The Pope has to disregard the context in order to be able to say these two expressions, « Follow Me! » or « Get behind Me » are synonyms. We know that Benedict XVI prefers to avoid speaking about Satan, and does not like altercations… Perhaps he reproves, without daring to say so, this “violence” on the part of Our Lord, as a good successor of St Peter: « Oh, Lord, do not speak in this manner! »

In any event, he invites us to a sincere confession that concerns us all, beginning with himself:

« We know full well that throughout the centuries and still today, Christians, while possessing the exact confession of faith, have a continual need for the Lord to teach them anew that in all generations His path is not that of earthly power and glory, but that of the cross. We know and we see that still today Christians, ourselves, take the Lord aside to tell Him: “Heaven preserve You, Lord! This must not happen to You” (Mt 16.22). And because we are not sure that Heaven will preserve Him, we ourselves try, with our artifices, to make sure that it does not happen. This is why the Lord is constantly required to repeat to us: “Get behind Me, Satan!” (Mk 8.33) Thus, the entire scene remains disturbingly topical. For, when all is said and done, we do not cease to think according to “flesh” and “blood” and not according to the Revelation that has been given to us to receive in the Faith. » (p. 327)

How true this is! Except that « the Lord » only teaches us through His hierarchy. It is to it that He must repeat, particularly since the opening to the world that the Second Vatican Council taught in defiance of the Cross: « Get behind Me, Satan! » (Mk 8.33) Yes, truly « the entire scene remains disturbingly topical ».

The Pope then quite rightly points out that « the connection between the title of Christ (Messiah) and that of Son was consonant with biblical tradition (cf. Ps 2.7 and Ps 110) » This suffices to give Fr. Grelot and his ilk a mark of zero point zero. As for Luke’s version, according to which Peter recognises Jesus as « God’s Messiah (the Anointed, Christ) », how can it be said to be « post-paschal », when we find it on the lips of the old man Simeon at the beginning (Lk 2.26), and at the end on those of the « rulers of the people » who insulted Jesus on the Cross: « He saved others, let Him save Himself if He is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One! (Lk 23.35). Thus, like an arch stretched from Jesus’ childhood through the confession of faith made at Caesarea Philippi to the Cross, the three texts show the “Anointed One’s” unique belonging to God. » (pp. 327-328)

Benedict XVI then mentions the miraculous draught of fish, when Peter fell down at Jesus’ knees: « “Leave me, Lord; I am a sinful man.” (Lk 5.8) In what took place, he recognised the very power of God that acted through Jesus’ words, and this direct encounter with God who lived in the person of Jesus moved him to his very depths. » (pp. 328-329)

There is also « the episode where Jesus walks upon the waters of the sea that the storm tossed with waves in order to reach the disciples’ boat. Peter then asks for the power to walk upon the waters also in order to go and meet Jesus. As he was threatened with sinking, Jesus stretched out His hand to save him, and he came back into the boat. At that instant, the wind ceased. The same thing happens as during the miraculous draught of fishes: the disciples in the boat bowed down before Jesus at once as a sign of dread and adoration. Then they said “Truly, You are the Son of God.” (Mt. 14.22-33) Experiences such as these are found throughout the Gospels, and it is in them that Peter’s confession of faith, such as Matthew formulates it (Mt 16.16), clearly finds its basis. In Jesus, the disciples had perceived time and again and under different aspects the presence of the living God Himself. » (pp. 329-330)

Conclusion: « You are mistaken if you attempt to make a historical reconstruction of Peter’s original words by attributing all the rest to subsequent development, perhaps to post-paschal faith. What could be the provenance of a post-paschal faith for which Jesus would not have laid the foundations? With such reconstructions, scientific exegesis overestimates itself too much. »

« Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin shows what there was in Him that really constituted an obstacle. It was not in the order of the political messianism – which existed in Barabbas and later on in Bar Kochba. They both found partisans to follow them, and their movements were both quelled by the Romans. But what there was in Jesus that constituted an obstacle is what we mentioned during Rabbi Neusner’s dialogue with the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount: it is the fact that He seems to place Himself on equal terms with the living God. »

By dint of dialoguing with this obstinate Jew, Joseph Ratzinger, even become our Holy Father the Pope, speaks like a rabbi: Jesus « seems » to place himself on equal terms with the living God! It is enough to scandalise the Jews…

Benedict XVI, however, also knows how to speak like Peter. He continues: « We owe it to the pragmatism of the Sadducees to have turned the Roman trial into a trial against political messianism. But even Pilate felt in reality that something quite different was at stake, and that if it were a question of a true “king” bearing promises on the political level, He would not have been handed over to him to be condemned. » (pp. 331-332)

When we consider « the completed mosaic of the texts », what do we observe? « Well, the disciples recognised that Jesus did not enter into any of the ordinary categories, that He was more than and different from “one of the prophets”. The Sermon on the Mount, the acts by which He reveals His power, the authority with which He is invested to pardon sins, the sovereign character of His preaching as well as His way of approaching the traditions of the Law, all this allowed them to recognise that He was more than one of the prophets. He was the “Prophet” who, like Moses, spoke with God Face to Face, as a friend. He was the Messiah, but not in the sense of a simple envoy of God. »

« In Him, in an amazing and unexpected way, the great Messianic words become truth: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” (Ps 2.7) In certain great moments, the deeply moved disciples felt that He was God Himself. » (p. 332)

THE TRANSFIGURATION

« Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James and John with Him and led them, them alone, out of the way on a high mountain. » (Mk 9.2; Mt 17.1)

Which mountain? « Let us thus once again gather together the different mountains in Jesus’ life: the mountain of the temptation, the mountain of His great preaching [of the sermon on the Beatitudes], the mountain of prayer, the mountain of the Transfiguration, the mountain of His agony [the Mount of Olives], the mountain of the crucifixion and finally the mountain of the Ascension, on which the Lord, in contrast to the offer of domination over the world by the power of the Devil, declared: “All authority on Heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” (Mt 28.18) In the background, however, we also see standing out in profile, Sinai, Horeb, Mount Moriah – the mountains of the revelation of the Old Testament, which are at the same time mountains of the passion and mountains of revelation, and which also refer to the mountain of the Temple, on which revelation becomes liturgy. » (p. 336-337)

How many riches in so few words! Sinai, Horeb and Mount Moriah are one and the same mountain, perfectly situated on the map, in the north of the Sinai peninsula, according to the recent discovery of Emmanuel Anati (He is Risen no 45, May 2006, p. 1-20). Benedict XVI does not breathe a word about it, but the topography that was established by this archaeologist to whom L’Osservatore Romano recently dedicated a laudatory review, are the best illustration of the Pope’s affirmation. « Horeb, the mountain of God » (Ex 3.1), the theatre of worship given to God, to Yahweh from the most far-off times, is called today Har Karkom, a Hebrew name that means « mountain of Saffron ». The expression used by Benedict XVI, « mountain of the passion », suits it perfectly, for this is where Abraham climbed his way of the Cross in the company of Isaac, his dear son, who bore the wood of the holocaust (Gn 22.6), a figure of Jesus’ ascent of Calvary, the only Son. The name « Moriyya » means « Yahweh sees ». The « land of Moriyya » is the land where Yahweh manifests Himself, sees and makes Himself seen, « provides » (Gn 22.14). Benedict XVI thus rightly calls it the « mountain of revelation », all the more because it is no other than Mount Sinai, Horeb, where Yahweh-God spoke to Moses in plain view of His people.

Finally, these names: Sinai, Horeb and Moriah « also refer to the mountain of the Temple », not only that of Jerusalem where « revelation becomes liturgy », by the ceremonies that were celebrated there from the time of Solomon’s reign to its destruction by Titus in 70 A.D., but also because Emmanuel Anati discovered on the p