News

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

JERUSALEM: May 16, 2007 - During Great Lent, the nuns of both Convents, on the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane, more and more frequently came to hear alarming reports of the impending departure of their spiritual father, Hegumen Andronik, Deputy Chief of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission. We had all hoped that these were no more than rumors. Alas, after Pascha, from the lips of Fr Andronik himself, along with the joyful greeting “Christ is Risen,” we heard “I am leaving. It is decided. I entrust you to the Mother of God!”

How many tears were shed, how the nuns pleaded! Fr Andronik had served his obedience in Jerusalem for over twenty years. He enjoyed universal love and respect. For us this is a harsh blow and a terrible loss. Despite the fact that we in the monasteries had already known of the impending departure of Fr Andronik, the hierarchy, in the persons of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and Archbishop Mark, Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, was not informed. Only the recent visit by Bishop Agapit of Stuttgart shed light on the matter. Hegumen Andronik, in a conversation with Bishop Agapit, declared that he is not in agreement with the decision of the Synod and the forthcoming signing of the Act of Canonical Communion. On the basis of this declaration, it was decided to relieve Fr Andronik from his duties as Deputy Chief of the REM, while allowing him to continue to conduct divine services until his departure for America after Ascension. The Abbesses and the nuns many times tried to prevent Fr Andronik from making this step, but he remained determined.

We hope and pray that the day comes when Fr Andronik realizes that this is not the right path, but a departure from the Church, and, coming to his senses, will return to his home at the Convent on the Mount of Olives, to the universal joy of all the residents of our Convents.

Mother Moisseia and the sisters.

Mother Elizabeth and the sisters.

Source: www.synod.com - The Official Website of theSynod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

"Never Distance Yourself From Intimacy With Your Heavenly Spouse"

VATICAN CITY, MAY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of the May 7 address Benedict XVI delivered to the international union of superiors-general of women's religious congregations.

* * *

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF SUPERIORS GENERAL
Hall of Blessings
Monday, 7 May 2007

Your Eminence,
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Dear Sisters,

I am pleased to meet you on the occasion of the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General. I greet and thank Cardinal Franc Rodé, Prefect of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for the cordial words addressed to me.

I extend my thanks to the President of your Union, Sr Therezinha Rasera, who has been the interpreter not only of your affectionate sentiments but also of the women religious of the entire world.

Then, I greet each one of you, dear Superiors General, who represent 794 female religious families working in 85 countries on the five continents. And I thank you for the immense army of witnesses of Christ's love, who work on the frontiers of evangelization, education and social charity.

As your President recalled, the theme of the Plenary Assembly, which is being held in these days, is particularly interesting: "Called to weave a new spirituality that generates hope and life for all of humanity". The topic you have chosen is the fruit of an ample reflection on the following question: "In contemplating our world, listening to its cries, its needs, its thirst and its aspirations, what thread are we Religious, responsible for our Congregations, called to weave in this moment in order to become prophetic and mystic "weavers of God'?".

The careful analysis of the responses received have helped your Union's Executive Council to understand that the chosen symbol of "weaving" is a typically feminine image used in all cultures, and it responds to what the Superiors General felt to be a spiritual and apostolic urgency of the present moment.

In the same responses some "threads" have been emphasized -- the woman, migrants, the earth and its sacredness, laity, dialogue with the religions of the world -- that you deem useful in order to "weave" in this, our age, a renewed spirituality of Consecrated Life and to launch an apostolic approach that corresponds more to people's longings. And it is exactly on these themes that you have been reflecting during the work of your Plenary.

You are aware that each Superior General is called to be an animator and promoter, as your President opportunely emphasized, of a "mystic and prophetic" Consecrated Life, strongly committed to the realization of the Kingdom of God.

These are the "threads" with which the Lord urges you today, dear women Religious, to "weave" the living fabric of a useful service to the Church and to an eloquent Gospel witness, "ever ancient and ever new" in its fidelity to the radicalness of the Gospel and courageously incarnated in contemporary reality, especially where there is greater human and spiritual poverty.

Certainly, the social, economic and religious challenges that Consecrated Life in our day must face are not few! The five pastoral areas that you emphasized constitute other "threads" to be woven and inserted into the complex web of daily life, interpersonal relationships and apostolate.

Often, it means taking unexplored missionary and spiritual paths, yet always maintaining solid interior relations with Christ. In fact, only from this union with God can that "prophetic" role of your mission flow and be nourished, which consists of "proclaiming the Kingdom of heaven", an indispensable announcement in every age and in every society.

Never cede, therefore, to the temptation to distance yourself from intimacy with your Heavenly Spouse by allowing yourselves to be overly attracted by the interests and problems of daily life.

The Founders and Foundresses of your Institutes have been "prophetic pioneers" in the Church because they never lost the acute awareness of being in the world, but not of the world, according to the clear teaching of Jesus (cf. John 17:14). Following his example they tried to communicate God's love with words and concrete gestures through the total gift of themselves, always keeping their gaze and their heart fixed on him.

Dear Religious Sisters, if you want to walk faithfully in the footsteps of your Founders and Foundresses to help your own Sisters to follow their examples, cultivate the "mystical" dimension of Consecrated Life, that is, always keeping your soul united to God through contemplation.

As the Scriptures teach, the "prophet" first listens and contemplates, then speaks, allowing himself to be totally permeated by that love for God which fears nothing and is even stronger than death.

The authentic prophet, therefore, is not concerned so much to accomplish works, which undoubtedly are important but never essential. Above all, he tries to be a witness of God's love, seeking to live it among the realities of the world, even if his presence can sometimes be "uncomfortable" because he offers and incarnates alternative values.

May it be your prime concern, therefore, to help your own Sisters to seek Christ above all else and to place themselves generously at the service of the Gospel. Never tire of taking every possible care in the human, cultural and spiritual formation of the persons entrusted to you, so that they are able to respond to today's cultural and social challenges.

Be the first to set an example by fleeing commodities, comforts, convenience in order to bring your mission to fulfilment. Share the richness of your charisms with those who are committed to the one mission of the Church, which is to build the Kingdom.

For this purpose establish a serene and cordial collaboration with priests, the lay faithful and especially families in order to meet the suffering, the needs, the material and above all the spiritual poverty of many of our contemporaries.

In addition, cultivate a sincere communion and a genuine collaboration with Bishops, the first to be responsible for evangelization in the particular Churches.

Dear Sisters, your General Assembly is taking place during the Easter Season, when the liturgy invites us to proclaim with constant exultance: "This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad!".

May the joy and peace of Easter accompany you and always dwell in you and in each of your communities.

In every circumstance be messengers of this Easter joy like the women who went to the tomb, found it empty and had the gift of meeting the Risen Christ. Happily, then, they ran to give the news to the Apostles.

May Mary, Queen of Virgins, and your Saints and blessed Founders and Foundresses watch over you and your respective Religious Families.

In entrusting yourselves to their intercession, I assure you from my heart of a prayerful remembrance and willingly impart to all a special Apostolic Blessing.

© Copyright 2007 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Code: ZE07051625

Date: 2007-05-16

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

Commentary by Father Raniero Cantalamessa

VATICAN CITY, MAY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the Italian-language commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, on the book "Inchiesta su Gesù" (An Investigation on Jesus) by Corrado Augias and Mauro Pesce.

Parts 1 and 2 appeared Monday and Tuesday, respectively.

* * *

5. Who is responsible for his death: the Sanhedrin, Pilate, or both?

The chapter of Corrado Augias' and Mauro Pesce's book on the trial and condemnation of Christ deserves a special discussion. The central thesis is not new; it began to be circulated after the tragedy of the Shoah and it was adopted by those who in the '60s and '70s proposed the thesis of Jesus who was a Zealot and a revolutionary.

On this view, the responsibility for Christ's death falls principally, indeed exclusively, on the shoulders of Pilate and the Roman administration, which indicates that the motive of Christ's condemnation was more political than religious. The Gospels acquitted Pilate and accused the Jewish leaders so as to pacify the Roman authorities in their regard and make friends with them.

This thesis was born from a just concern that today all of us share: To cut off at the root every pretext for anti-Semitism, which has procured for the Jewish people much evil at the hands of Christians. But the gravest mistake that can be made for the sake of a just cause is to defend it with erroneous arguments.

The struggle against anti-Semitism should be put on a firmer basis than that of a questionable (and questioned) interpretation of the Passion narratives. The innocence of the Jewish people, as such, of responsibility for the death of Christ rests on a biblical certainty that Christians have in common with Jews, but which, unfortunately, for many centuries has been strangely forgotten: "Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son" (Ezekiel 18:20). The doctrine of the Church knows only one sin that is transmitted by heredity from father to son, original sin, no other.

With this rejection of all anti-Semitism in place I would like to explain why the thesis about the complete innocence of the Jewish authorities of Christ's death and the essentially political nature of this death cannot be accepted. Paul, in the earliest of his letters, written around the year 50, gives the same fundamental account of Christ's death as the Gospels. He says that "the Jews have put Jesus to death" (1 Thessalonians 2:15), and he must have been better informed than we moderns about what took place in Jerusalem shortly before his arrival in the city, having once approved and "doggedly" defended the condemnation of the Nazarene.

During this earliest phase Christianity considered itself to be directed principally to Israel; converted Jews made up the majority membership in those communities in which the first oral traditions that came together later in the Gospels were formed; Matthew, as Augias and Pesce note, is concerned to show that Jesus came to fulfill, not abolish, the law. If there had been an apologetic worry, it would have been to present the condemnation of Jesus as the work of the pagans rather than the Jewish authorities with the scope of reassuring the Jews of Palestine and the Diaspora about the Christians.

On the other hand, when Mark, and certainly the other Evangelists, write their Gospel, Nero's persecution had already happened; this would have made Jesus appear to be the first victim of Roman power and the Christian martyrs as sharing in the fate of the Master.

We have a confirmation of this in the Book of Revelation, written after the persecution under Domitian, where Rome is the object of a ferocious invective ("Babylon," the "Beast," the "prostitute") because of the blood of the martyrs (cf. Revelations 13ff.). Pesce is right to perceive an "anti-Roman tendency" in John's Gospel (p. 156), but John is also the one who more accentuates the responsibility of the Sanhedrin and of the Jewish leaders in Christ's trial: How do we reconcile these things?

We cannot read the accounts of the Passion while ignoring everything that precedes them. The four Gospels attest, we can say on every page, to a growing religious contrast between Jesus and an influential group of Jews (Pharisees, doctors of the law, scribes) on the observance of the Sabbath, on the attitude toward sinners and publicans, on the clean and unclean.

Joachim Jeremias has shown the anti-Pharisaic motivation present in almost all of Jesus' parables. The Gospel data is just that much more credible insofar as the contrast with the Pharisees is not at all prejudicial or general. Jesus has friends among them (Nicodemus is one of them); we find him at dinner in one of their houses; they are willing at least to dispute with him and to take him seriously, unlike the Sadducees.

Without denying therefore that the later situation did something to further the contrast, it is impossible to eliminate every opposition between Jesus and an influential part of the Jewish leadership without completely unraveling the Gospels and making them historically incomprehensible. The ill will that the Pharisee Saul bore against the Christians did not come from nowhere and he did not bring it from Tarsus!

Once the existence of this contrast has been demonstrated, how can it be thought that it did not play any role at the moment of the final rendering of accounts and that the Jewish authorities, almost against their will, decided to denounce Jesus to Pilate only because of their fear of a Roman military intervention.

Of course Pilate was not so sensitive to the demands of justice to be worried about the fate of an unknown Jew; he was a hard and cruel type, ready to suppress with blood the tiniest hint of rebellion. All of that is true enough. However, he did not try to save Jesus out of compassion for the victim but only to score a point against his accusers with whom he had been in a cold war since his arrival in Judea. Naturally, this does not at all diminish Pilate's responsibility in Christ's condemnation. He was just as responsible as the Jewish leaders.

After all we should not aim at being "more Jewish than the Jews." From the accounts of Jesus' death present in the Talmud and in other Jewish sources (however late and historically contradictory they may be) one thing emerges: The Jewish tradition has never denied the participation of the religious leadership of the time in Christ's condemnation.

It has never defended itself by denying the fact but rather by denying that the fact constituted a crime and that it was an unjust condemnation: A version compatible with that of the New Testament sources which on the one hand highlight the participation of the Jewish authorities (of the Sadducees more than the Pharisees) in the Christ's condemnation, and on the other hand often excuse them, attributing their actions to ignorance (cf. Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8). Raymond Brown also comes to this conclusion in his 1608 page book on "The Death of the Messiah."

A marginal note, but one that touches on a very delicate issue: According to Augias, Luke attributes to Jesus the following words: "And my enemies who did not want me to be king, bring them in and slaughter them before me" (Luke 19:27). Augias says of this line that "it is with such passages that the supporters of 'holy war' and armed struggle against unjust regimes seek to legitimate their actions."

It must be pointed out that Luke does not attribute these words to Jesus but to the king in the parable he is telling and we know that we cannot transfer the burden of the parable in all its details to reality, and in any case the parables must be transferred from the material plane to the spiritual plane. The metaphorical sense of those words is that accepting or rejecting Jesus has its consequences; it is a question of life or death, but spiritual life and death, not physical. Holy war has no place at all here.

6. A balance

It is time to end my critical reading with some concluding reflections. I do not share many of Pesce's views, but I respect them, recognizing their full right to citizenship in historical research. Many of them (on Jesus' attitude toward politics, the poor, children, the importance of prayer in his life) are indeed illuminating. Some of the problems raised -- Jesus' place of birth, the question of his brothers and sisters, the virgin birth -- are objective and are likewise discussed by some believing historians, but these are not problems with which the Christ of the Church stands or falls.

In regard to the place of birth, however, it seems strange to me to recognize that Mary constituted "for some early Christian writers, and Luke in particular, an important source of information" (p. 122) and then to deny Luke's report that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (p. 10). Mary should have known where her son was born!

Less justified it seems to me in a historical investigation of Jesus is the care with which Augias gathers all the insinuations about presumed homosexual relationships existing among the disciples, or between Jesus himself and "the disciple he loved" (was he not supposed to have been in love with Mary Magdalene?), and the detailed description of the scandalous incidents involving some of the women present in Christ's genealogy.

It seems we move sometimes from the investigation of Jesus to gossip about Jesus. However, there is an explanation for this phenomenon. There has always been the tendency to clothe Jesus in the garb of one's own epoch or ideology. In the past, though questionable, they were serious and relevant causes: Christ the idealist, socialist, revolutionary. ... Our time, obsessed with sex, cannot think of him except in connection with certain emotional problems.

I think that this putting together of a consciously alternative vision of a journalistic bent with a historical vision that is also radical and minimalist has led to a result that is on the whole unacceptable, not just for the man of faith but also for the historian. The claim according to which there is no relationship between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Church arises because of a failure to take account of the idea of development which should be familiar to the historian.

To confront the Christianity of the Gospels with that of later times and to conclude that they are two completely different things is to ignore that Christianity is life and that life is subject to growth. If we compare the photograph of an embryo in the maternal womb with the one of the ten-year-old child who has come from it, they will appear as two totally different realities, and yet everything that the person has become was contained and programmed in the embryo.

In the end one must ask the question: How did Jesus, who did not bring anything at all new to Judaism, who did not want to start any religion, who did not perform any miracle, and who is not risen save in the altered mind of his followers, how did he, I repeat, become "the man who changed the world," as the subtitle of the book defines him? A certain type of criticism begins with the intention of wiping away the veneer with which the ecclesiastical tradition has covered Jesus of Nazareth, but in the end the treatment reveals itself to be so corrosive as to dissolve the person beneath as well.

In trying to clear up the "mysteries" about Jesus to reduce him to an ordinary man, we end by creating a still more unexplainable mystery. A great English exegete, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, says: "The idea that the imposing edifice of the history of Christianity is like an enormous pyramid balanced upon an insignificant fact is certainly less credible than the assertion that the entire event -- that is, the event plus the meaning attributed to it -- really did occupy a place in history comparable to the one that the New Testament attributes to it" (C.H. Dodd).

Does faith condition historical research? Undeniably, at least to a certain extent. But I think that unbelief conditions it a great deal more. If one comes to the figure of Christ and to the Gospels as a non-believer (this is the case, as I understand it, of Augias at least) the essential is already decided: The virgin birth can only be a myth, the miracles are the result of suggestion, the resurrection is the product of an "altered state of consciousness," and so on.

One thing, nevertheless, consoles us and allows us to continue to respect each other and pursue dialogue: If the faith divides us, we are compensated by having "good faith" in common. Augias and Pesce claim to have written the book in good faith and I have certainly read and discussed it in good faith.

-----

Part 1 can be found here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=107670

Part 2 can be found here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=107740

Code: ZE07051618

Date: 2007-05-16

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

ASSISI, Italy, MAY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The Order of Friars Minor Conventual convened their 199th general chapter, which will include a visit from Benedict XVI for a Mass marking the anniversary of St. Francis' conversion.

About 100 friars from 34 countries will meet together until June 20.

During the assembly, held every six years, the Conventual Franciscans will discuss their way of life and pastoral work in light of the challenges of today's world. They will also elect the 119th minister-general of the order.

Benedict XVI will join the friars in Assisi on June 17.

In an Aug. 31 dialogue with priests from the Diocese of Albano, Italy, the Pope said: "Francis was not just an environmentalist or a pacifist. He was, above all, a converted man.

"Before his conversion, Francis was a sort of playboy. Then he felt that this was not enough. He heard the Lord's voice: 'Rebuild my house.' He slowly came to realize what the Lord meant by 'build the house of the Lord.'"

The Franciscan's minister-general, Father Joachim Giermek, echoed the Pope's words. The Conventual Franciscan superior's letter convoking the general chapter said: "The entire order feels called to conversion and to rediscover the vitality of its roots."

Code: ZE07051613

Date: 2007-05-16

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, MAY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Church leaders condemned the slaying of innocent people after a hotel bomb in Pakistan killed at least 24 people and injured dozens more.

The Tuesday explosion struck the Marhaba Hotel, frequented mostly by Afghans and located near the centuries-old Mahabat Mosque, in northwest Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, reported www.AsiaNews.it.

The Catholic Church in Pakistan condemned the attack and called on the government to "re-establish law and order" in the country.

"We strongly condemn the killing of innocent people" said Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha, chairman of the bishops' conference of Pakistan.

"It is a sign of greater anarchy and intolerance because of declining law and order. As a result of this, some people are taking advantage of the situation," he added.

The death toll is expected to rise as many of the wounded are in critical condition.

Archbishop Saldanha asked for "impartial investigations into extremism," while offering "prayers for tolerance in Pakistan so that peaceful solutions can be found to conflicts that may lead to a just society."

Code: ZE07051628

Date: 2007-05-16

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2013

Father Philip in Stable Condition

NEW DELHI, India, MAY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Two men shot and injured a priest who is headmaster of a Catholic primary school in a suburb of New Delhi. He remains in the hospital in stable condition.

Two men entered the St. Vincent Palloti Primary School where they sought out Father George Philip and shot him, reported www.AsiaNews.it on Tuesday.

Witnesses said the two young men arrived at the school asking for the headmaster. The priest welcomed them and invited them to take a seat, handing them the admission form.

One of the men then took out a handgun and shot Father Philip three times in the chest.

The 35-year-old priest remains in the hospital where doctors have removed the bullets and report that he is out of danger.

The police said initial investigations suggest a case of attempted robbery. This theory has failed to convince authorities in the Archdiocese of Delhi.

Father Dominic Emmanuel, spokesman of the archdiocese, said: "The police are being very naive to say that the attack was carried out because the men wanted to rob Father Philip of a mobile phone.

"Why would someone who wants to rob a person of his mobile phone carry a gun inside a school? Or fire three shots at the priest?

"Since the attackers carried a pistol, there is reason to be worried about the incident. It is clear that the miscreants had come prepared with the intention of harming him, though the motive for the attack is not clear yet."

Code: ZE07051612

Date: 2007-05-16