- Religion and Philosophy»
- The Role of Religion in History & Society
Extracting the Success of the Synod on the Family from the Jaws of Defeat: A Joinder To Anne Hendershott (Part 2).
A Joinder To Anne Hendershott
By Fr. Ken Evurulobi, President, MarysRose Organization.
In her recent articles “What’s Behind the UN Attack on the Church?” and “Making Gay Okay at the Synod” ,Dr. Anne Hendershott, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio exposes the real thrust of the agenda of the gay lobby group at the Synod on the Family, and traces its sociological roots.
I quite agree with Hendershott on the powerful expose. But I am of the view that addressing the issues raised at the Synod and overcoming the stalemate that marked its outcome demands a theological solution.
I will proceed by, first of all, highlighting the possible influences that helped to donate a space for the gay agenda as a topic during the Synod.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES ON THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY.
The Cold War Ideology.
During the cold war, he U.S. Foreign Service willingly donated itself as an instrument of warfare against communism, and this offered no mean attraction to the late polish pontiff Pope John Paul II. But that this generosity was discovered to, after several years, have been colored by a culture of relativism is a factor which did much to arouse the suspicion of conservative Islam which at that time was economically, and politically affiliated to the former communist bloc. This affinity held special security significance, for Islam as it battled the “infidels” and the dictatorship of Western civilization, thus sharpening Islam’s appetite for violence.
As the communist pillars collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions, and in this way shattered the old satanic haven which these pillars signified, global Satanism re-negotiated its security in the hands of fundamentalist Islam and Freemason. Today, either ways, or hiding behind religion, Satanism has thrown off the cloak of communism which it originally wore with the pride of an ostrich, and has made its way back to the center-stage of world diplomacy.
Consciously or consciously, the church is still battling communism in a world scale.
John Paul II had honest intentions for convening the multi-faith summit in 1986, one of which being an open and practical concern for the unity of faiths as one of the most potent weapons against the communist resurgence and global atheism. As if he anticipated this subversive character of the communist scourge, the events at the world scene have not escaped this insightful experimentation in the Ecumenical field. However, the inauguration of the World Union, its subsequent institutionalization in the form of One-Heaven-Organization, its mystical codification in the Satanic-Code and its practical manifestation in the form of political parties, national governments, world institutions, e.t.c. – all these are the new face of a more dangerous amorphous communism that has been substantively built into a major component and has assumed the dominant factor of World Diplomacy.
Thus, one of the greatest pitfall of Pope John II’s diplomatic involvement was the alliance with American CIA in the war against communist Russia. Vatican’s missionary incursion into Russia was a necessity – divine as well as humanity’s need – and may have been fraught with landmines but then it did not first of all require an excursion into the Oval Office and a look from its window to Russia through the highly Masonic manipulated lenses. The alliance may have been necessary, but Vatican conceded so much to the extent that the detractors ceased the opportunity to exploit and intrude into the Vatican with a dirty agenda tucked away under their ampit. Instead, a look from the Vatican’s diplomatic window in Russia, as clandestine as it might have appeared, could have been more rewarding and could have served to erect the barriers that necessarily define the differences between a spiritual need and a secular one, between a divine institution and a secular state.
Describing the circumstances of his election as a pope, Pope Francis said it was a reach out to the farthest part of the earth.
Of course, the election of Pope Francis is a masterpiece of divine action in the 21st century church which began with the obedience of ex-Pontiff Benedict XVI in respect of his voluntary resignation.
Leonardo Boff, Jesuit Jon Sobrino and Gustavo Guiterez had strong European influences that are predominantly German. For them however, the evaluation of their works and struggles as nothing more than tracing out the consequences of German ideas by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was highly frustrating and seen as an apparent caricature of their experience of poverty in the Third World.
As a person, Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Bergloglio may have had strong reservations with regards to the structure of the fight against poverty, oppression and suppression in Latin America but to insist that his own experience was merely reactionary is, to say the least, insensitive.
The experience and personality of Pope Francis as coming from the Third World where such currents like liberation theology which celebrates and defends the poor, the oppressed and the rejects of the society in a manner that does not frown at violence and rebellion is historically significant for some of the members of a central church institution like the Roman Curia that have had their fingers bruised in the fire ignited by legalism, centralism and triumphalism.
At the end, the experience and personality of Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Bergolio holdout a question both for the bundle of reactionaries out there and for serious minded theologians everywhere on the real vocation of a Catholic Theologian with regards to application in and outside pastoral ministry. The is also true about the experience and personality of Pope Francis with regards to the Magisteruim.
The challenges as well as the dilemma of the pontificate of Pope Francis may therefore be glued from this remark by John Allen Jnr:
In July 1985, a remarkable gathering of theological firepower took place at the Monastery of the Sacred Heart in Petropolis, Brazil, outside Rio de Janeiro. The Franciscan priest and theologian Leonardo Boff, who had been silenced indefinitely one month earlier by Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was there, joined by his brother Clodovis. The Uruguan Jesuit Juan Luis Segundo was present, along with the Peruvian Gustavo Guitrez, the man who coined the term “Liberation Theology”, and a host of others. It was a “who’s who” of the liberation theology movement in Latin America.
He (Boff) told the group he had come to feel there was something wrong, something un-Christian, about a concentration of ecclesial power that acknowledges no constraints and answers to no one but itself. Yet, Boff said, he was determined to stay with the Church, not to trigger the Latin American schism that Rome obviously feared from the liberation theology movement.
According to Cox, Boff said that one Brazilian bishop had even asked him to do a careful study of all Ratzinger’s writings, especially his just published interview with Italian journalist Vittori Messori that became The Ratzinger Report, and then draw up an indictment charging Ratzinger with heresy. Boff refused the bishop’s offer, saying that he would not wish to subject anyone, Ratzinger included, to the kind of ordeal he had been through. Nevertheless, the fact that a Catholic bishop could seriously envision pressing charges of heresy against the church’s top doctrinal officer – even if it was more a political gambit than a sober theological judgment – illustrates the passionate nature of the fight over liberation theology that Ratzinger enkindled.
Fundamentally, the liberation theologians aimed to dissolve the alliance of church, state and military that had dominated Latin America for centuries … In the context of the cold war, any threat to the existing order in Latin America was viewed with alarm in Washington, D.C., as the 1982 Santa Fe document prepared by key Reagan advisors illustrates. In this report, liberation theology is treated as an example of the broader Soviet/Marxist attempt to corrupt the “soft underbelly” of the Western hemisphere.
(John Allen. Jr., Pope Benedict XVI ; A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, London, Continuum, 2000. Pages 131 – 132)
Of all these, it is important to highlight the suspicion Europe/America had about liberation theology as an example of the broader Soviet/Marxist attempt to corrupt the “soft” underbelly of the western hemisphere.
Is it possible then that what Europe/America detested and stigmatized in Latin America, they have are re-packaged exported to the Vatican - to corrupt the “soft underbelly” of the Holy See?
However, in reference to the Third Secret contained in the Fatima Message especially concerning a Bishop dressed in white, I wish to quote from Patricia Lefevere’s article published in the Nov.22, 2013 edition of the National Catholic Reporter titled “Fears, Tears and Silence: the day JFK died” thus:
Quade plucked two pieces of new chalk from a box and with a heavy hand pounded an arc across the blackboard. At each end of the crescent, he painted an "X" in white chalk. At the top, he layered a cross in yellow chalk.
Pointing to the two X's, which he labeled the ultra right and ultra left of the political realm, he told us: "It is the job of the president to harmonize the elements of the far right and the far left." Next Quade pointed to the cross at the top of the arc, telling us that it represented the president."When the president cannot harmonize these disparate elements, the nation is in peril."
Suddenly a knock interrupted Quade. "He's gone," the voice of another instructor informed us all. The door closed. A blond male student seated behind my desk rose and announced that he was from Houston and that this was "the greatest day in American history."
Generally speaking, a possible coup d’état against the Son of God is a greater tragedy that is knocking the Pyramid of Faith hard on the edge.
Real Churchmen and women – the people of the stuff of Late John F. Kennedy, former U.S President assassinated in cold blood and his late mother, Margaret – must begin to lead the counter-effort the Church is making to curb some cowardly agitations. Taking up this worthy cause in freedom does not detract from but rather underscores the urgency of the need to vehemently address the issues of the clergy sex-abuse of minors, clericalism, corruption and terrorism.
From the many different high-pitch choirs singing the reform song in the Church today, Fr Hans Kung is perceived to be an experienced Choirmaster with an authoritative baritone voice commanding larger followership.
Andso when Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio appeared on the window of the Sistine Chapel on March 14, 2013 singing the reform song and bearing the name, Pope Francis , many, including the reform choirmaster himself, have every reason to be excited.
I have read the compact edition of Hans Kuhn’s autobiography ”My struggle for Freedom”. And since then, the Kuhn personality became a question- a recurring question – though not an answer for my own experiences as a priest and a theologian.
If, in fairness and justice, Kuhn can be correctly regarded as a dissident theologian, then it is equally imperative to review Mathew Fox’s use of the term “ecclesiolatory” in reference to the selfishness of some actors at work in the Roman Curia. This much was also the greatest fear expressed by Karl Rahner and one which hunted the whole length and breadth of his theological career, and eventually followed him to the grave. It is the fear of abuse of authority and privileges in the Church.
Hans Kuhn has always insisted that Christian trust in faith is the ultimate foundation for Christian freedom. This is, according to Kuhn, the radical fundamental trust which in the light of Jesus has found its root (radix) in the gracious God and has no illusions about its achievements, but needn’t be oppressed by mistakes either. By this I understand that even though it is God alone who justifies, the phrase “but needn’t be oppressed by mistakes either” does imply that the believer must expend some meaningful effort, or rather work hard to protect a gift that is considered a great valueb- the equivalent of an eternal miracle.
Kuhn had been fascinated by the progress recorded in protestant theologies -a progress he traced to the Christian trust in faith”. Remarkably, he wrote:
There is no question that the foundations of the strength of protestant theology and also of the fearlessness, concentration and consistency of the theology of Karl Barth lies here (Christian trust in faith). This will give me, too, decisive support in all the controversies and form the ultimate foundation for my Christian freedom, which is facing unsuspected tests: whether I ultimately stand there justified does not depend on the judgment of my environment and public opinion. It does not depend on faculty or university, state on church. Nor does it depend on the pope- still less on my own judgment. It depends on a quite different authority, the hidden God himself
((Hans Kuhn, Struggle For Freedom, London, Continuum, p.146)).
Consequently, he would maintain that faith is not submission to a human authority, but unconditional trust in God.
Kuhn did not hide his frustrations and disappointment when the objective faith of the church which was some how making itself manifest in the events at Lourdes and Fatima with regards to the place the Blessed Virgin Mary occupied in the history of salvation failed to conform to his own subjective opinion about healing and prophetic ministry in the church. Thus, from Einsiedeln through Lourdes and Fatima to Southern Italy, Kuhn exhibited one trait that left him alienated from the faith of his grandmother and that of his mother and from the needs of his sick brother. It is a basic contradiction in the first place that Kuhn could concede to, and not refuse the request of her own mother to make a prayerful journey to Southern Italy on behalf of his brother who was terminally ill.
If the name “Hans Kuhn” insinuates an alienation, on a wider scope, from the faith of the fathers and from the needs of a sick but brotherly hierarchy, the total neglect of the force with which the theologian in the personal experience and theological works of Hans Kuhn had underlined and asserted the need for the reform of the Roman Curia and the imperative of freedom of theology is to blame for the inconclusiveness and the stalemate that marked the synod on the family.
Kung’s problems with current Church teachings find their deepest roots in the fact that in his person, life and ministry, he is a symbol of a rocky mountain with the heart of a dove. But here, under the dome, many have the heart of a vulture enshrined and buried in excess of flesh. The desires and expressions of the vulture’s heart are, most often, made to manifest, in interpretation and application, as a body of “doctrines” – a personal ideology that is distinct from and opposed to the gospel imperatives of faith, hope and love but effectively designed to advertise the beauty of phrasaism. Unfortunately, the drama is proving to be what it really is: a frustrating hallucination reducing the structures of divine government to mere ecclesiolatory and confining the power and influence of Catholicism to a vast museum (apologies to Mathew Fox).
Therefore the challenge which the Kung’s personality present to Orthodox theology and to the official Church arises, not from the fact of bellicose disposition cultivated along the line of conscious dissent and necessary adventure alone but also out of the fact of sincerity and love which he brought to bear on his conception about the generosity of God expressed through and in terms of grace.
Regrettably, Kung has perhaps unconsciously allowed his perception of the divine generosity to drag him further away from the podium of Orthodox theology where he originally held sway as a veteran towards the court of public opinion where his vocation as a theologian seems to have assumed the character of secular profession. Since then, an ostentatious reasonable fear functioning along the line of dissent, bias and prejudice about the abuse of offices, rights and privileges in the Church have been allowed to ferment and accumulate not against infallibility as Kung supposes, but against the Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience of God.
The path chosen by Hans Kuhn is a mechanism of defense taken too far, perhaps unconsciously stretched beyond its breaking point, in an effort to retain two values he personally considered as having a universal and practical significance for the Church and for human development- a faith in a good God who alone justifies and calls people to the priestly ministry in the church, and the evolving freedom of theology which is sponsored in the main through the instrumentality of the Second Vatican Council by a God who, in the words of Karl Rahner, is the “Discovered Unknown”.
While citing his encounter with Karl Barth, the influential protestant theologian noted for his work on justification and Kuhn’s mentor in a cheerful dispute with him over the papacy Kuhn unconsciously betrayed his frame of mind in the midst of the controversies in which he was immersed. Kuhn, in the dispute, had conceded to Karl Barth in these words” I leave the good faith to you”, to which Barth retorted immediately in these words:
“Good faith? I would never accept that. And when one day I am called before my God and Lord, I will not come with all my collected theological works in an Alper-Hutte (rucksack) on my back: all the angels would laugh. Nor will I say to him in justification of myself, I always had good intentions, “good faith”. No, I will stand there with empty hands and only find appropriate those words which I hope may also be my own last words: God be gracious to me a sinner”.
(Hans Kuhn, p.146 -147).
In my correspondence with Kung in 2007, and reacting to the account hegave regarding the health of his beloved mother which did not improve after he took her to Lourdes towards the last moments of the woman’s life, I told him that the Fatima Message may be the prayerful intervention of the Our Lady of Fatima with the hands of God reaching out to heal his sick mother – the Church.
May I solicit the support and commitment of my elderly colleague and mentor in asking that the attention of Pope Francis be drawn to the Fatima Message as he resolutely matches on the slippery road to reforms.
Decisively, my deepest respect for Kung and my unwavering appreciation of the Kung enigma stems however from the fact that despite all the factors that gave flesh to the penal measures visited upon him, Kung still resolutely and fearlessly believes in and marches along with the Church in hope and, surprisingly, not just as a Lutheran priest, but as a Catholic Priest.
Against this background, one can correctly observe that, though Benedict XVI may have no regrets to entertain as an ex-pontiff, the overloaded legalistic system that produced the curial Joseph Ratzinger must be humble enough to admit the urgency of the need to weigh the structures of Angustine’s theology in the crucibles provided by a theological tradition that has excavated the significance of God’s mercy for the “other sheep” from the grave where it was buried by the ecclesiolatory. Untill this is done, the stalement over the synod on the family cannot be said to have be been properly addressed.
With a theological consciousness that is governed by the June 30, 1998 apostolic letter authored by Pope John Paul II “Ad Tuendam Fidem” and the Ratzinger commentary that accompanied it, I must confess that I am particularly drawn to Karl Rahner in the search for a solution that would not be a repetition of the Kuhn-Ratzinger rift, or one that may escalate it further.
Hans Kuhn concedes this conciliatory role to Karl Rahner during his encounter with Rahner in his (Kuhn) search for an “imprimatur” to his book “The Structures of the Church”.
“He tells me that”, Kuhn wrote about his encounter with Rahner on the invitation given by Kuhn to Rahner for a friendly review of Kuhn’s manuscript on the “Structures for the Church”, “as a Catholic theologian I should have accepted the dogmas of the Church as defined and why I should have done so”. (Hans Kuhn, p.243).
I really do not think it is fair to be objective, or non-partisan about Karl Rahner. His theology has the capacity for total condensation to altruistic conviviality with regard’s the situation of the Synod on the Family.
In the spirit and style of analysis adopted by Odia Ofeimun, a Nigerian poet and polemicist, as he tried to identify a common ground between the writings of Shehu Abdulahi, an Islamic humanist and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the Premier of the defunct Western Region of Nigeria, I contend that, intersubjectively, and from the stand point of theological interest, no matter how defined, it is arguable that even at this most dogmatic or because of it, Karl Kahner tackled fundamental problems of theology and pastoral ministry with creativity that speaks to contemporary issues with the freshness of new knowledge. If you belong to a Church where the best things that the theological mind has thought were never allowed to become the norm, you would need no special explanation for why those interested in creating an enduring tradition are always in trouble. This is especially the case when the untried roads consistently prove to be the answers to the problems that society faces.
Along this line, Karl Rahner would go further to distinguish between Christian Pagans (deceitful people who hide under the cloak of Christianity) and Pagan Christians (people who are honest in the pursuit of their day-to-day engagements and encounters of life through obedience to a living conscience whether they profess the Christian faith or not); between Juridical Membership of the Church (all those who have acquired juridical status in the Church through baptism whether they are sincere or not) and non-Juridical Membership of the Church (those whom he referred to as“Anonymous Christians”).
In his book “Foundations of Christian Faith”, Rahner successfully developed a Theological Anthropology where he authoritatively asserted that every individual human person is fundamentally constituted at the very depths of his existence by the very Being of God whether this particular individual person is aware of this or not, whether he admits this or not. And that faith and the resultant action is just a thematic manifestation or the concretization of that which is inherent in the nature of every human person. Therefore, every form of authentic religious belief is a consequent evolutionary imperative of human nature - in time - though conscious or unconscious efforts may be, and is often made, to stifle this, or delay it, or deny it completely. Here is found the real meaning of atheism, agnosticism or skepticism.
But according to Karl Rahner, in the midst of all others, the official faith of the Church is the ultimate and most purest confession ever made and ever will be made. In Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the human person discovers and grasps in concrete terms and in freedom that which he has ever known to be real; that which is lodged in the very depths of his own very being as an individual human person; that which he has always yearned to touch, to feel and to embrace but cannot because, though a spirit, he as a human being is drawn down by the event of his material body and by space and time but God himself is an absolute, unbounded Mystery. In encountering Jesus Christ of Nazareth, man discovers, embraces and lives in constant tangible communion with that God who has always presented himself initially in man’s experience as inescapable, absolute defining, unifying and underlying factor of all that exists and as that which is the answer to this question about man himself as well as an answer to all other questions. Thus, while Jesus Christ is the shape, form or size – that is, the real identity and the only one - which God can take and which He has already taken, and therefore, no other identity or concrete manifestation of God is possible except in Jesus Christ of Nazareth even though one can admit some rays of the being of God in other places or persons, the Eucharist is the final irrevocable condition of God who is Jesus Christ and the logical conclusion of God’s gift of himself to man in the person and actions of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. So, according to Karl Rahner, God is not the Deus Absconditus (the God who created the universe and then latter ran away) or the Undiscovered Unknown (that which cannot be known and remains unknowable as presumed by many skeptics and agnostics), but the Discovered Unknown (that which has been made known, seen, heard, touched and experienced but yet remains a transcendent absolute mystery not fully and exhaustibly given to human experience or understanding). God is Immanuel. Therefore, for Karl Rahner, even though God is unknowable, inconceivable, unfathomable, untouchable and a transcendent absolute Mystery (or in its technical terms, the Immanent Trinity). He is also, one and at the same time, the God that is now known/knowable, touched/touchable, discovered but yet in an inexhaustible manner (Economic Trinity).
The Immanent Trinity is, one and at the same time, the Economic Trinity, and the Economic Trinity is one and at the same time, the Immanent Trinity.
Karl Rahner took this course so as to provide some additional bricks that will serve to hold historical objectivism, and in this way prepare this foundational ground of the Christian faith to be able to withstand the hostility and devastating arsenals of an age of relativism, scientificism, technologism, terrorism, corruption and atheism.
The other side saw Karl Rahner tilting towards what has been considered as a misplaced sympathy for non-Christian believers, agnostics and atheists. Here, Rahner disputes and regards as cruel the view that the overwhelming mass of people who are not only non-Catholics but also non-Christians, both those before and after Christ, are unquestionably and in principle excluded from the actualization of their lives and condemned to eternal damnation. Rahner strongly maintains that a greater number of Christians, more than those we know to be expressly professed, have remained anonymous because of the conditions and circumstances into which they are born or in which they have inevitably found themselves. Thus, for him, anyone who does not say in his heart “there is no God (like the fool in the Bible) but testifies to him by the radical acceptance of his being is a believer, irrespective of what he states in his conceptual, theoretical and religious reflection. Therefore, the faith of an anonymous Christian, in deed and in truth, can be present in an implicit form whereby he undertakes and lives the duty of each day in the quite sincerity of patience, in devotion to his material duties and in the love of neighbor. It is just as highly probable, in the words of Karl Rahner, that there should be Christians without knowing it as that there should be “Theists” without knowing it. Anonymous Christianity does not however include anyone who, in his basic decision, were really to deny and to reject his being ordered to God, who were to place himself decisively in opposition to his own concrete being by living a worthless and unfulfilled existence. It refers only to someone who gives - even if it be ever so confusedly – the glory to God and who has let himself be taken hold of by this grace. Rahner is convinced that human thought–patterns may not be able to absorb this classification immediately for the very reason that its structure is not always immediately perceptible or, that it lacks a directly perceptible structure and is merely a transitional state whose meaning and definition can be seen in the light of the finished product, that is, when such a one becomes a member of the Church in its existential and fullest sense. There is every reason to dwell on this conviction especially if we come to realize that every being is always characterized by its final aim whether he recognizes it as such or not. The anonymous Christians are “believers on the other side” or of “the other sheep”.
I have come to discover that responsible citizenship and authenticity in the practice of the different faiths by the adherents of the world religions are two inescapable demands that create the required gateway to a functional global ethic as well as the exit door to its unforeseen pretensions. This is because very method of application (for such an ethic) is fraught with a lot of difficulties. For instance, in the view of James Madison, even though human nature makes internal and external controls on government necessary, it will take obedient angels to build and run a perfect government. Down through history, peoples have suffered the evils of unjust, oppressive government – whether their own government or that of another nation. American leaders took this issue into account in devising the over 200-year-old American Constitution. Yet even this “best effort” of human self-government has its problems. Human nature has not changed. The age-old problems of greed, self-interest, corruption, strife and petty hates remain inherent in the administration of any form of human government.
Recognizing this inherent difficulty about the nature and profession of belief, Rahner prophetically toyed with the idea of a new Nicea.
THEOLOGICAL IMPERATIVES FOR A POST-SYNODAL EXHORTATION.
It seems very clear that the Enemy - the Devil- foisted a fascist movement on the church in order to re-structure and build the ecclesiastical institutions into an “ecclesiolatry”. An arrogant and humiliating imposition on the conscience of Christ’s faithful, of a ravenous ecclesiology whose trademarks are legalism, centralism and triumphalism - this is the definition of ecclesiolatry. The overlords re-designed the original focus of and subordinated the gospel to their stupefying vision and mission, employing it as a galvnized instrument for the acquisition and exercise of worldly power. In this way, the dogmas and doctrines of the church were made to evolve and to hold in trust for its adherents a new ecclesiology that was characteristically vengeful and pharisaic.
This narcissistic odyssey which tried to eclipse the Magisterium gave birth to a bundle of reactionaries in the form of a flamboyant and polluting intellectualism that defined and asserted its relevance and authority in absolute categories of divine truth and justice. Strange meanings and interpretations were imputed into the scriptures by those who were already frustrated with the authoritarian system in place in the hope of winning allies, effecting re-alignments and extracting allegiance needed to drive the vehicle of dissent forward. For obvious reasons, the theological community became the first casualty.
The tragedy of the Church of the post-Second Vatican Council is that it has become accustomed to living with, and at times, has been forced to legitimize the activities of a click of desperate churchmen -whether conservatives or progressives, curial or non-curial members -who have allowed the inflammation of their ergo, quest for power and vengeance, and reprobate ambitions override and drown completely their allegiance and commitment to Jesus Christ and his church.
John Allen jr. would refer to this as “a product of the turbulence” that always follows an ecumenical council which has the habit of creating a vast gulf that seemed to separate Catholicism from the statements and policies flowing from Rome.
The only way to dissolve the layers of cynicism and suspicions that have accumulated against it in the past decades, and convince a skeptical world that she is still church is to confront this two-way monster headlong and break herself free from their grips. The Synod on the Family provides this opportunity.
It is highly desirable – indeed, an imperative – that all the parties involved in the Synod debates allow themselves to be educated by the rich analysis which Rahnerian thought has provided about juridical membership and non-juridical membership in the Church, between Christian Pagans and Pagan Christians.
Current missionary efforts or a “going forth” may thus compel to a radical change of attitude, deep appreciation and provisional accommodation that would not violate dogmas or doctrines under the cover of charity.
Whatever remains, and one which needs to be addressed with urgency tasks the Church to a humble and conciliatory appreciation of Hans Kuhn’s theory of Global Ethic especially in its Ecumenical and Interfaith dimensions.
THE NATIONAL ETHIC IMPERATIVE.
The effort or struggle to occupy a space or be accommodated within the schemes or platforms provided for the appreciation and management of multitudes of interests, even as this general framework constitutes the defining factor and overriding input of organized and progressive society, may not locally exhaust the very contents of politics, but surely, it does allay the anxiety associated with the attempt to discern the real meaning of political action.
As it is always the case in every struggle, tensions are generated, re-alignments become inevitable, violent eruptions tend to usurp the place of dialogue and issues formerly considered as settled become once more targets of rash reviews, leading, as it were, to the evolution of a new kind of identity that is at once volatile and amorphous. And except when it is expertly managed, a volatile and an amorphous identity typifies, I am persuaded to believe, a very sore spot in evolutionary history and tragic moment in the course of human development.
All possible explanations for the seeming change in the behavior, whether of contracts, agreements or treaties, necessarily become, all of a sudden, confiscating, and characteristically irredentist when they imperil human development and when they attempt to disable the organic factors that make this development possible. Asymmetric religious contracts, especially ones in which the name of God is evoked, must always necessarily permit that their terms, behaviors and destination pass through the prisms of religious freedom and be accommodated in a referential framework of faith and justice. The neglect by religious bodies and secular institutions to come to terms with this antidote of institutional organization (or behavior) has created a crisis of identity too volatile and amorphous that has taken the religions and some secular societies away from the path of growth and development and pushed them to the border line of fascism where the different faiths and internal or foreign policies of sovereign nations or global institutions are now depicted as fossils of irredentism and globalized artworks of antique monadism.
As global warming continues to eat-up the humus soil that holds the tap-roots of our common humanity in a ferocious manner and as it presumably undertakes to bring the ravaging flames (not rays) of a once-upon-a-time friendly sun closer to us in a way very much unsolicited, strong benefactors and benefactresses for environmental safety, for example, the Green Peace Initiative, are not saying every leave that grows on a tree trunk or every grass in the field must be coated with thick green oily paints. This is not the way to make our environment green neither is it the proper way to restore what we have taken out of nature. For every tree cut down, we can plant two more, and then exercise much restraint in activities that have got to do with bush burning and deforestation. But what has one got in terms of restitution for one precious human life cut down in a trajectory output of violence, corruption and terrorism?
Though exceptionally generous and unique its own way, nature also does make inexorable demands upon each and every one of us. These demands are exhaustively captured and summarily concretized in terms of responsibility and accountability.
Responsibility and accountability are a condition for the harmonization of the multifarious networks of actions, interactions, relationships, events and the intractable episodes of reciprocity that are found in nature. Whether our involvements in and with nature are governed by a belief in God, or a curiosity of some sort (for example, the Big Barn Theory), or by some attitudes of evolution, our record books in responsibility and accountability must, of necessity, have a column reserved for the value that is placed upon human life, and the virtues of truth, justice and freedom. To that extent these items of extreme value and virtues find reflection in our individual and collective lives respectively, to that extent we are human beings.
One can, therefore, to an extent, grasp the contents of global morality but that of a global conscience seems quite a ruse, or one that evaporates when confronted sternly by the foreign policy of many independent nations and institutions whose roots are well grounded in political realism of the extreme type with all its inherent factors of terrorism, violence, corruption and general moral relativism except if there is a unifying and a binding factor to it.
Hans Kuhn, is somebody whose works and influence cut across and strongly permeated the many projects of human development, peace and security as these affect the world religions.
On September 1993 in Chicago, U.S.A., at a conference of “Parliament of World Religions” convoked at his instance, Kuhn attempted a “Declaration for a Global Ethic” and went ahead to outline its principles and its urgency. He founded the Global Ethic Foundation – a Non-Governmental Organization – and had it dedicated to this cause.
Vigorously, I had sought to work or partner with Kuhn in furtherance of his vision for a global ethic because I quite agree with him, in his own words, that:
• There cannot be a new global order without a new global ethic.
• It is a fundamental demand that every human being be treated humanely.
• That there are irrevocable directives which a global ethic spells out, and these include:
• Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life.
• Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order.
• Commitment to a culture of tolerance and of truthfulness.
• Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women.
• A transformation of consciousness.
It was not possible to access the opportunity of a partnership with Kuhn. In my last correspondence with him in late 2008, and later, in a conversation over the telephone, Kuhn told me his efforts were then concentrating in putting his memoirs into their final shape as age was no longer on his side.
Nevertheless, I have made strenuous efforts to follow the developments in Kuhn’s Global Ethic Project for past a decade and have found them satisfactorily expedient.
However, it is important to point out that a global religion must be an innovation of a kind – one that cannot be called Christian, Islamic, Judaistic, Hinduistic or Shintoistic. Except if it is allowed to be syncretic, a global religion, for now, is a thing of the distant future; otherwise it is the divesting of authentic religious beliefs and practices. Kuhn’s vision of a Global Ethic is not a prisoner to syncretism so long as a global ecumenical body is the subject of the evolution and profession of a global faith. But a global ecumenical body must also be a union of other general ecumenical bodies because for, for instance, for Christianity to be adequately represented, it must require that the different Christian denominations constitute one ecumenical body, the same for Islam, Hindu, etc. And it is only their uniform endorsement for a global religious action that can establish the validity of such a declaration. Professor Hans Kuhn understands this challenge to its fullest. But it will be so much an invitation to disaster, chaos and syncretism if Prof Hans Kuhn’s appreciation of this challenge fails to include an understanding about the impossibility of a World Ecumenical body of all religions or refuses to doubt its resilience. The idea of a World Religion encompassing all faiths, whether this is a direct consequence of a need for a global ethic that is very urgent and critical or one which is a very remote implication, is highly quixotic.
Yet, the quest for a global ethic has grown beyond the religions and has become more assertive and seems quite inevitable. But its application would require some strong inputs from the United Nations Organization. While Kuhn has sold this idea in a wholesale to the United Nations, it needs to be observed that faith is different from ideology. And if this is true, then a global ideology cannot usurp the place of faith or duplicate it for whatever reasons.
Terrorists have always lived under a cover – religion, institutions, etc, and have unsuspectingly worked hard to upgrade such institutions by the use of propaganda, blackmail and betrayal to instruments of mass destruction. And as terrorist templates are put in place and working almost always unaided, gullible citizens of different nations and real owners of institutions have watched, albeit helplessly, as the vision and mission of the founding fathers are hijacked, subverted and ostentatiously replaced with uncanny idioms hiding behind the cover of attractive slogans like democracy, freedom, foreign policy and progress. The ability to buy a cover for their nefarious actions, more than the massive deployment of funds to the purchase of weapons of mass destruction is the reason for the huge success recorded by terrorists in their evil expedition in genocide.
Today, terrorists are putting propaganda and advertisement strategies to a selfish end that lampoons the responsibility and accountability consciousness of religious, institutional, national and individual actors. Infiltrations, pretentious collaboration and leakages are factors which terrorists employ to dispossess others of and hijack ownerships of private establishments, institutions and even national governments. Thus hijacked, these are built into formidable terrorist enclaves or nuclear tanks. And not to be concerned about this misnomer in human and institutional development is, more than the menace of Boko Haram, the Al-Queada, Taliban, etc, the meaning of a culpable ignorance about an ongoing war in every nook and cranny of the globe.
Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience are inescapable and irreducible constituents of Divine Government. Totally distanced from and consciously opposed to dictatorship even as there can be no possibility of conceiving such in relation to it, divine government broadens into and envelopes the very vast areas of the physical, spiritual and the mystical. To infringe on the omnipotence of God isto attack the Sovereignty of God. And to stubbornly persist to the extent of the excision of the physical world from the spiritual so as to force God out of human affairs as demonstrated by the attempt, in Europe/America, to force or expel God from public life, thereby confining him to only a compartment in the vast arena of individual life and then reduce him to one superhuman force in the midst of millions is to attack the omnipresence of God. And to inaugurate a propaganda sponsored by and hidden away in a mechanism of occult control which, when properly investigated, is nothing than clairvoyance, or divination is to attack the Omniscience of God. The whole engagement encompasses a three dimensional act of treason instantly attracting Divine Justice.
Divine Justice, a succeeding act of confirmation and execution of an irrevocable decree of divine government after the place occupied by Divine Mercy, elicits an awfully terrifying experience. The mystical symbol of divine justice is a tall angel with a drawn long sword at battle-ready - a sight that frightened Balam’s horse and forced him do the imponderable, for no matter how fast one is, one cannot run away from the power of divine justice. Even if one has the legs of the fastest horse, God must surely catch up with such a person and put such a one on the reverse. This is also the picture given in the 3rdSecret contained in the Fatima Message. The Astral symbol is a tall mirror with a crucifix hung at the opposite wall facing the mirror so that the image is the only reflection seen in the mirror apart from the human face looking at the mirror. Once evoked, the only possible evasion from Divine Justice is achieved and can only be achieved by recourse to Divine Mercy. This recourse is only functional and effective if one had not originally attempted to, by virtue of one’s previous decisions and actions, deny or denounce the provisions of divine mercy in a concentrated atmosphere of unbelief.
Under the Divine Mystical Decree, the Kingship of Jesus Christ remains unalterable in all circumstances and conditions, and at all times. No amount of equivocation, subversion and inversion can abrogate or annul the fact that, as God, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords - the Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient one.
Just as every dissent or opposition against a just and legitimately enacted decree of government amounts to a crime, so also every discotheque opposition to the Kingship of Jesus Christ amounts to treason. In fact, in the very act of opposition to the sovereignty and universality of the Kingship of Christ lies the discovery, although in a very painful way, of its potency. And despite the profile of the agitators and the commitment of their collaborators, agents and instruments, every opposition to divine government always finally boomerang, and the forces at work - the devil - illuminated.
Relativism, secularism and incessant pre-occupation with extreme pragmatism translate also to a sabotage of visionary thought and constitute an attack on the future, not only of the Church, but also of mankind. When Immanuel Kant made the powerful assertion that “two things fill the mind with wonder: the starry heaven above and the moral law below”, philosophy, theology, science and religionists did not miss out on the lofty significance of this contribution to the development of modern thought. In this powerful thesis that laid the foundations for modern ethics which further branched into moral theology, at least tangentially, the seeds of secularization lay in ambush and attempted to subvert practical Christianity and reduce it to mere ethicism.
Before God - that Divine Absolute Mystery whom Karl Rahner referred to as the Discovered-Yet-Unknown (not the Undiscovered-and-Unknown); and as a praying subject wholly given to total appreciation in clear practical measures and to unconditional self-surrender, in an atmosphere of freedom, to that God who has revealed himself in the Economy as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the human person is, indeed, a fugitive from the ways of a perverse world and agnostic minds; a wanderer, like the astronauts in the moon-walk, away from his earthly home and in search of a house built by God (Heb. 11); and an incurable mad-imbecile who never stops searching, who is never completely healed or satisfied as one contemplates eternal mysteries that are lofty and impenetrable. And except one makes that act of total self surrender and allows oneself be swallowed up by that mystery itself – in hope and trustful surrender- one ends up with another kind of bad madness or leprosy - one who is not here with the world nor there with the Church.
The doctrine of infallibility is a fundamentally constituted spiritual atmosphere as well as the ecclesial ground in and upon which the human person, most especially Catholics, can stand to appreciate the Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience of God, and the only one. What remains outside of this, even if one succeeds in underrating and closing the door of human cognition practically against relativism and scientific rationalism trickles down to occultism, Satanism, or to be prudent, syncretism.
On the other hand, no one doubts that pride and greed have the possibility of reducing infallibility to autocracy. But is it not prodigal not to understand that organized occult or satanic dictatorship which is possible by experimenting on the confederation of gods or idols is a greater danger to be avoided than the remediable failures of the institutional church? And is there any need to mention that such an experiment, as costly as it is, is the reason for the importation of foreign gods and idols from other parts of the globe into Europe and America by the Council for Foreign Relations?
This experiment on the confederation of gods which is one of the most jealously guarded secret policies of the British/U.S Government code-named ‘the Democratization of God” is directly under the strict control of the CFR through the Muslim Brotherhood and the P2.
The Church is the one ark of salvation founded on the rock and envisaged by Jesus Christ to be the custodian and the manifest action of salvation, in an objective manner, for all peoples whether as individuals or as a group. To the extent this vision of Jesus Christ finds its full expression in the life of an individual or a group so much so that it comes to constitute the mission statement and the mandate for action for that individual human person or group, to that extent there is an ecclesial situation. That is, to that extent there is a Church.
But if Christianity has a history - a long history of growth and developments which have crystallized into the present form and shape it now wears in doctrine, liturgy and action - then it is very clear why theological parallels and innovations, despite their appeals, are generally reckoned as merely provisional and tasked to patiently seek confirmation from and an endorsement by the official Church.
There is nothing wrong with the doctrine of Infallibility or with the Pope doing the appointments to the ecclesiastical offices and being the supreme and final authority in the Church. The problem lies in the fact that the enemy has concluded and perfected plans to hijack the most important, powerful and influential resources of the Church in the form of these doctrines and turns around to use them to fight the Church.
However, it is very unfortunate if some of the inquisitorial accompaniments of medieval Catholicism have eventually been found to have usurped the arcane spaces reserved for God in the scheme of Catholic thought and practices. And to get to know that God is not occupying those places any longer but that those places have now become highly profane and an evil underbelly underscores the chronic need there is to return the question about Infallibility in the Church populated by people with clearly defined rights, privileges and options to the discussion table. Proactively, it is highly disgusting and irritating when the Vatican resorts to raising unnecessary alarms and wave templates of historically jaded and disposable authoritarian bulls on the face of those who demand for transparency and accountability from the managers of the common patrimony of our faith. With societies that have a long history of autocracy, the issues of contention may be subject to manipulation but not when the demands are placed by sincerely committed hearts and minds whose edges are sharpened by democratic attitudes. Pope Francis has used the opportunity of the Synod on the Family to score a very high mark here as a diplomat.
Acknowledgement must be made that, at times, tensions may brew up between democracy and faith. When this incident is not properly managed, it leads to a crisis – crisis of meaning and crisis of faith – with regards to the human community. And with regards to individual and institutional lives respectively, it breeds another form of crisis that is amorphous in character – the crisis of identity. In managing or dealing with the different kinds of identity crisis, syncretism, mediocrity and fundamentalism are real risks to be avoided.
On this note, it is necessary to assert that corruption, terrorism and mediocrity cannot just be explained away as issues that are in concert in keeping or defending the faith. This way of thinking was the sole fueling ingredient and the sustaining factor of the clergy sex-abuse of minors and the Vatileaks.
Today, the emphasis has shifted from the thinking that outside the Church there is no salvation to the fact that the fullness of the Church is found in the Catholic Church. But in what way then can one understand and appreciate the necessity and indispensability of the Catholic Church for salvation, since, as it has been seen above, the Church is the custodian and the agent of salvation yet 2/3 of the human population are not Christians while 60% of the world Christian population are not Catholics. Is there another way of being, not just Christian, but Catholic? Or, put in another way, what value is retained by subjective or private faith in the general framework of God’s universal salvific will?
That the original Christian community was founded on the Rock which Jesus Christ is as its visible Head; and that this community is one that is open to growth and development; and that in truth, growth and development have occurred in leaps and bounds, evolving over the centuries, of course not without the attendant problems, give room for a resilient articulation of the reality of God and the community’s objective experience of him into a functional, protective and preservative mould which has a significance for future generations.
To deny the statements which solemnly hold, protect and preserve the originality of the events of God as set forth in Jesus Christ the character of infallibility is to leave them at the mercy of theorizers and predators that are often times constituted at their subconscious depths by atheism and Satanism. Does this not present us with an insight into the origin and development of dogmatic statements?
It must be reasoned that the event of the incarnation is a divine invitation to a sincere and necessary appreciation, appropriation, contemplation and articulation of the Being of God in an authentic human language, and to apply this concretely to the human condition while at the sametime protecting, preserving for and transmitting it to future generations. This is a necessary function for tradition as signified by the Magisterium – one which involves a discerning observation of the interactive actions of permanence and change, objective experience and subjective one, form and matter, substance and accidents as well as the tensions that brew up in the course of these interactions.
Against this background, it must be observed that no amount of charity, no matter its magnitude and the measure of miracle associated with it, can contradict the Being of God and the manner of its existence as given to us in the Economic Trinity.
The donation of Godself in an act of irrevocable love - the Incarnation – is the greatest miracle ever witnessed to in human history. The Eucharist is the logical conclusion and the final condition of this Godself – fully involved and actively at work in human history which came to us as uncreated grace and took the human form of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As such, it is the highest and most important miracle that is very significantly central to the life and ministry of the Church. The Church, therefore, is not favorably disposed to any miracle that has the capacity of contradicting the Eucharist.
Dealing with the stalemate at the Synod on the Family requires that every stakeholder in the faith come to appreciate in a very radical way that all there is from the physical to mystery, from unbelief to faith, from illusion to reality, from ignorance to knowledge, from sin to sainthood, from the known to the unknown, from sorrow to joy, from sickness to health, from death to life, from earth to heaven – all these are not exhaustively discernible to ordinary human intelligence, not exhaustively defined by doctrines, not exhaustively captured by any rule of life, not exhaustively made concrete in a particular epoch, not exhaustively articulated by a particular thought category, not exhaustively built into any particular tradition. And nobody’s subjective experience is exhaustively encompassing of the reality we call Mystery.
Hence, it is very important to emphasize the difference as well as the interactive sessions between the “Economic Trinity” and the “Immanent Trinity”, between what God does “Ad Extra” and what He does “Ad Intra”, between “Change” and “Permanence”, between the “Many” and the “One”, between – to borrow from Karl Rahner - the “Discovered Unknown” and the “Undiscovered Unknown”. All these are highly indispensible elucidating factors in reality’s own evolution.
In managing the common patrimony of faith, a quite reverent disposition, not the irredentism or bigotry which many have subscribed to about their subjective opinions regarding the Mystery that challenges us with faith- response, is the only thing worthy of the revelations, vision and mission that drive our zeal for action in the Church.
Humanity has come of age and to dangerous crossroads its journey towards actualization and so novelties must pose no surprises to anybody even though they are more clearly appreciated by progressive minds and hearts than by rigid mentality. Nevertheless novelties demand official responses – one which must take into account the imposing edifice of rights and obligations in a pluralistic and democratic society. And to refuse to respond, or venture into a response outside the demands or conditions unequivocally outlined by freedom, justice and peace is what it means to appear unarguably unreal and exasperating.
Tradition is open to fecundity, growth and development. However, the seed of growth and progress evolves, not from the abortificients that are introduced into it by rival cultures, but by a disposition of faithful industry exercised within the limits legitimately provided.
IS A NEW NICEA POSSIBLE?
In an article titled: “Time to Unite All Catholics With a New Nicea” and published in the National Catholic Reporter, Mark Etling made a bold attempt in the search for answers to the radical theological pluralism in which there is no unifying center, no common core, but which, instead, has been the very attraction, if not addiction, of Western Christianity.
Carl E. Braaten is correct to assert that the unity of faith is the function of dogma. But dogma is also the function of the Church through the instrumentality of Theology. What would a New Nicea look like? The intrigues that play out in the course of finding an answer to this question and the need to clarify it further compels me to draw at length from Carl Braaten thus:
The authority of dogma cannot be separated from the authority of the church to decide what is true and false on the basis of Scripture. But which church? The ecumenical problem is that the unity of the church has been fractured by the two major schisms of the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. The ecumenical dialogues have shed new light on the Reformation. Before Vatican II Protestants tended to view the Reformation as the reconstitution of the true church of the New Testament, existing ever since in discontinuity with the Roman Catholic Church. The slogan of radical Protestants was back to the Bible by way of their favourite Reformer – Luther, Calvin, Muentzer, Knox or whomever. Now some heirs of the Reformation see themselves essentially as ‘evangelical Catholics’, mangrove members not of a new church but of a renewing movement within the Western Catholic Church. The farthest thing from the mind of Luther and Malenchthon was to be founder of a new Christianity. The Reformation was not intended to bring about anything like ‘Protestant Christianity’. Modern Protestantism is largely a victim of the various reducing diets administered by four hundred years of scholasticism, pietism, rationalism, revivalism, romanticism, idealism, historicism, liberalism, fundamentalism – a smorgasbord of isms which Karl Barth was right to dub a ‘heresy’. The protests of prophetic movements are necessary; it is tragic when they are forced outside the walls of the Una sancta and become independent communities that in due time are themselves in need of reform. We end up with the sorry sight of confessing movements within confessing movements.
Reclaiming the effectiveness of dogma depends on the reunion of separated churches. When Protestants lost the Episcopal and papal ministries of the historic church, they lost the teaching office. Since then the teaching office has been wandering all over the place, now in the hand of the princes, now in the hand of a synod of pastors, now in the hands of theological faculty, now in the hands of a voters’ assembly of laity and clergy, and now in the hands of bureaucratic managers who broker the various interest groups that vie for power and influence. Bonhoeffer is correct. In losing the teaching office of the church we have lost the efficacy of dogma.
This makes the ecumenical task all the more urgent. We are exploring new and deeper levels of meaning of the biblical idea of Koinonia in light of the Trinitarian foundation of the church. Perhaps the churches may together discover far-reaching implications for the ecumenical aim of reuniting the divided churches. The church is a communion structured in the image and likeness of the Trinitarian communion of persons. The ecumenical issue of great importance is that of the relationship between the local Eucharistic assemblies and the regional and universal manifestations of the one, holy catholic, church. Local congregations exist in Eucharistic fellowship with each other, and that level of communion also participates in ecclesial reality. The universal church is a communion of communions, a ‘church of churches’. There are ministries and signs of unity at each level of ecclesial communion-presbyters (pastors or priests), bishops, and pope. There remain theological disputes concerning all of them that stand as obstacles in the way of making visible the essential God-given unity of the church.
What prospects does a Trinitarian based communion-ecclesiology offer to the ecumenical quest for unity? Church theologians from the various traditions need to explore this question together. Perhaps the fruit of the ecumenical dialogues might be a new dogma, an ecclesiological dogma, in addition to Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the ancient church, affirmed and celebrated at a future universal council of the now separated churches. Imagine how much water will have to flow over the dam before that could happen.
Meanwhile, what shall we do? Our interim strategy is to license ourselves to do theology for the church as if it were already one, and to do it in a way that is evangelical, catholic, and orthodox. Nobody but the Holy Spirit knows exactly what that means or where it will lead. The Spirit has performed miracles before in the life of the church and it could happen again. We are not asked to be successful, only to be faithful. Theologians too must take up their cross and follow Jesus.
(Carl E. Braaten., “The Role of Dogma in Church and Theology” in The Task of Theology Today, Pfitzner, V., et al, Ed., T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1999. Pp 51-54)
In its approach to or dealings with theologians - even if the theologian is one with an unguarded zeal – the Doctrinal Office must resolve to become less arrogantly dictatorial and more proactively congenial.
The Sacred Deed is a divine mystical action carefully and most solemnly placed by the Divine Mystical Ucadia through the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Our Lady of Fatima whereby every activity of created existence – past, present and the future - are reduced to the twenty-six universal alphabetical codes and then re-constructed into a Sacred Song comprising of twenty-six “words” or “Musical Notes” in perfect harmony in such a way that these musical notes are most pleasing and acceptable to God – the Divine Mystical UCADIA.
It does not need any magic or manipulations associated with the Satanic code but instead its potency is carried on the wings of the prayers and actions of all those who subscribe to it or who are subscribed to it whether consciously or unconsciously. In other words, every activity of man is necessarily compelled to find expression and accommodation in and through this Divine Mystical Code, and cannot be accommodated or expressed except through this Divine Mystical Code.
To build the Roman Curia, all members of the College of Bishops and the three year circle of the Church’s liturgical calendar into the divine mystical code is to build all those at the highest level of service to the altar and every activity of this altar into the most solemn sacred song most pleasing to God. These mystical alphabets constitute twenty-six channels or networks, ambushed as it were by the presence of God in love through which reality is expressed.
In this way, the Sacred Deed is a reversal and destruction of the Satanic Code belonging to the 666 or World Union. Whoever consciously sets out to thwart, subvert or manipulate the Holy Name, the Church, the human community and the human person to serve any purpose other than that for which it is ordained and persists after being sincerely and unpretentiously warned or alerted automatically acquires the status of the opposition as defined in the provisions of the Sacred Deed. The circumstances are also the same for any person who sets out to scuttle the peace and security arrangements of the globe.
At such moments of doctrinal inflammations and inflexions of theological muscles, the Sacred Deed (the Holy See Model) can be evoked as the distilling factor of every fascistic intention, action and responses by the contending parties. The secular cause is what the Inter-Faith model of the Sacred Deed stands to serve. The principles that govern the Sacred Deed are clearly defined in another document.
If, as an agitator, one feels and insists being on the right to the point of absolute certainty, and to avoid the unnecessary rancor, blackmail, intimidations, usurpations, selfishness and violence which are suspected to be the character of such assessments, the Sacred Deed is to be evoked, not as a measure of punishment but as a principle of responsible profession of the authentic faith of the Catholic Church to be signed by the agitator. Under such circumstances, the agitator must win the support of two or three bishops of the Catholic Church who must be co-signatories to the Sacred Deed with him/her. At the ratification of the Sacred Deed during Mass immediately after the gospel, in front of a standing mirror with a crucifix held by a Mass Servant while standing behind the signee in the presence of the Magisterium as represented by a seated bishop, and by the profession of faith respectively, the agitator is perceived as having taken responsibility for the views being propagated by him/her or by the group he/she represents and is therefore obliged the issue or issues in contention within the limits established by his/her own competence or jurisdiction.
In this regard, a register of the Sacred Deed is evolved for all sympathizers and proselytes that might eventually wish to be admitted into the luminance provided by the agitator. No official, however, is to administer or oversee to the signing of the Sacred Deed by an agitator except such a person had signed the Deed previously notably at the point of taking over an office. A new office requires that the Sacred Deed be signed again even if the prospective candidate had signed it before.
The Sacred Deed concerns and is applied only, and only in contentious issues that have lofty doctrinal contents. It is therefore for the containment of apostasy, heresy and schism. The only way to get out of the hold of the Sacred Deed is by evoking and signing the Amnesty of the Sacred Deed just in the manner of evoking the Deed itself. By virtue of signing the Amnesty of the Sacred Deed, the agitator has renounced all and everything that has to do with the original position that led to the evoking of the Sacred Deed in the first place and re-affirmed the orthodox view.
Human elements and instruments are not the enforcers of the terms of the Sacred Deed, and any person who undertakes to enforce such by his/her own power or employs other means of achieving this against the agitator is doing so at such a great personal cost for, as long as the Sacred Deed is concerned, no one is fit to be a prosecutor, an advocate or an executor for or against an agitator in a process of divine assessment, accreditation or annulment as the case may be. It is between the agitator himself/herself and the God “who alone is the author and finisher of our faith”.
The right of practice granted to the agitator expires after six years, in which case the agitator, together with all who have subscribed to the practice, is expected to renew the Sacred Deed.
One can only become astonished about the kind of havoc the devil can wreck in “God’s Name”. I have a strong aversion for the tittle of David Yalop’s Book “In God’s Name” even as I appreciate the concerns and fears the novel raises for every mature Christian mind. The adequate title of that book should have been “In whose Name?”
The greatest scandal of Christianity is that today, the work of a Prayer and Ministry which is ordinarily ordained to serve unity has become the most effective instrument of divisions the Devil has foisted on the Church.
Intercession, strictly speaking, is at the Astral and Mystical levels. Here, intercession is a fulltime covenantal relationship of commitment and service which one enters into with God either for a whole lifetime or for a period of time.
In reference to the Catholic tradition, the emphasis is on the contemplative life – monastic life for those in religious vocations, and contemplatives in active life (or what Karl Rahner referred to as “the Mystic in the Market Place) for those who are not into the monastic life. For those in the active life, it can take any form and the practitioner can hide behind and be disguised as a noise maker, a harlot, a roadside motor mechanic, or any profession in respect of the terms of reference received in connection with the particular assignment in question. In appreciation of the kind of challenges that confront a true Christian in the modern world Karl Rahner remarked that today’s Christian must be a “mystic” or he/she is not a Christian at all. This is required of the real “hearers of the world”. When Pope Benedict XVI came to appreciate this fact of Christian existence today, he himself remarked that “the Church of the future may have to become smaller if it is to remain faithful”.
In the course of one’s duty as an Intercessor, personality figures like a Mystical Divine James Bond may arise to assert themselves as players in the astral and mystical planes. And while on a critical divine assignment, the Intercessor may stumble on the most powerful and most viable pieces of information on security, economics, politics, education, sports, medicine, journalism, e.t.c and may decide to throw the information across to friends or those likely to be affected in the form of a banter, a joke, an advise or even, a criticism. Whether those who are likely to be affected by the information are positively or negatively disposed to the information is not the business of the intercessor – it is a matter of choice on the part of the hearers.
As a matter of fact, the intercessor has no interest of his own but serves and is willing to die for somebody else’s interests – God’s Will. This is his/her interest, and this alone. Every other interests, relationships and ambition are only relevant in the measure they serve God’s Will.
The intercessor does nothing, goes no other place and has no interests except what God wills.
As an intercessor, one’s duty is “to wait on” God and to function, in allegorical terms, as God’s “Personal Assistant” (P.A, ), and he/she has no freedom except if dispensed and released.
The intercessor incurs no guilt, no blame and no insults for God except what God decides to keep to himself. Instead, one does havoc to oneself and uses oneself to block attacks against God, and if necessary, willingly surrenders oneself to be reduced to a curse and accepts martyrdom so as to “complete whatever that is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” and so that the blessings of God might issue forth and be poured out upon humanity.
While the Holy Spirit is the animator, the Archangels and Saints of God are the intercessor’s collaborators.
At the Astral level, the intercessor is a purely divine ambassador to a particular kingdom or compartment in the human society. At the Mystical level, he/she is the Chief Executor of the Divine Will.
The intercessor, acting on divine instructions, may manage to smuggle himself/herself into somebody’s life or family or an organization – uninvited and even unwanted - waiting and battle-ready for a Mighty Dragon that had been unleashed upon believers but which is designed to pass through the way or actions of that life, family or organization with encompassing destructive consequences for the purpose of detonating or weakening its operations or even killing it. The operating dragon can decide to use or manipulate issues and facts against the intercessor to the point that he/she is misunderstood, misrepresented, and called names. This does not disturb the intercessor whose major concern is to report back to God in these three words:
“It is Finished” (John 19:30)!
The Intercessor’s method is his/her secret. But suffice it to mention that the intercessor is the man with “an ear to the ground” (apologies to James Hardely Chase in respect of his novel “An Ear to the Ground). He listens. He gets told. People tell him what they cannot tell to the police. And the police come to hear from him what they cannot hear from any other person.
The intercessors motivation is governed by the supreme divine presence, involvements and action in human history as found in Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians 1:15-20 but centered on Verse 20: God was in Christ reconciling all things to himself, both things in the heavens and things on earth by making peace through his cross.
Indeed, every contradiction is reconciled in Christ.
Because they are committed to no person in marital obligation and are detached from family life, priests and religious are best fitted for this job. This fact, far and above every other consideration, accounts for the attack against the celibate priesthood.
My ordeal in Aba started when some members of the Knight of St. Mulumba, working in concert with key members of the Reality Organization – a global satanic organization disguised as a foundation which has the mandate to upgrade Aba City to the 3rd highest occult zone in Nigeria after Benin and Calabar – decided that they cannot tolerate two Fr. Mbaka’s in the Nigerian Church, what more in Aba City. The details had been prognostically worked out and built into the satanic code as subscribed to by the Nigerian Union before 1996. The implementation took the shape of a concern for security.
My experiences as the Parish Priest of Our Lady of Fatima Parish, Aba and the circumstances of the death of the 14 members of the Adoration Ministries, Enugu, Nigeria (AMEN) in 2000 and 2002 respectively brought me to abrupt attention and compelled me to go into a prayerful private research on the topic “The Nature and Challenges of Fruitful Priestly Ministry in the 21st Century Church”.
It was while here that I caught the bug of intercession. The significance of this event for my life and ministry as a Priest and a theologian created me into a local and an international diplomat and a private investigator. My assignment was given to me by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen/Patroness of Nigeria and the Our Lady of Fatima with the terms of reference clearly spelled out: Excavate, Interpret and Recommend the contents and demands of the third secret of the Fatima Message to the Pope for implementation. It was a critical and an urgent mission but not a life time affair. And from obvious facts, the assignment is Accomplished.
The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI may be his own way of reporting back to the Father in these words, “It is Finished” – his own way of going to the cross. Every authentic Christian – theologian and curial members – must surely come to this crossroad in the journey of faith.
The cross is the greatest resolution of all theological controversies. Would he be willing to go to the Cross as a demonstration of his willingness and readiness to defend the Gospel – the true and authentic Gospel. In otherwords, even though the Bishop of Rome who is a member of the Society of Jesus Congregation and one who comes from a Third World country with all its trappings of sympathy for the poor and oppressed, would Pope Francis still prove to the world that he is the Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter and Supreme Pontif of the Universal Church.
Now, surely, all eyes are on him.