RITTER
88
RITUAL
theological questions — such as the Trinity, the meta-
physical Divine sonship of Christ, original sin,
eschatology — possess an entirely secondary impor-
tance. This selt-limitation is specially injurious to the
doctrine concerning God: all the Divine attributes,
except such as are practico-moral, are set aside as
unknowable. The essence of God is love, to which all
His other attributes may be traced. Thus, His
omnipotence is another phase of love inasmuch as the
world is nothing else than the means for the establish-
ment of the Kingdom of God. Even the Divine
justice ends in love, especially in God's fidelity to
the chosen people in the Old Testament and to the
Christian community in the New. Every other
explanation of the relation between the just God and
sinful mankind — such as the juridical doctrine of
satisfaction taught by St. Anselm of Canterbury — is
called by Ritschl "sub-Christian". Only the sin
against the Holy Ghost, which renders man incapable
of salvation, calls forth the anger of God and hurls
him into everlasting damnation. Other e\'ils decreed
by God are not puni.shments for sin, but punishments
intended for our instruction and improvement. Sin
being conceivable only as personal guilt, the idea of
original .sin is morally inconceivable.
Although Ritschlianism has undergone manifold alterations and developments in one direction or another at the hands of its learned representatives (Hamack, Kaftan, Bender, Sell, and so on), it has remained unchanged in its essential features. The Liberal and modern-positive theology of Germany is distinctly coloured with Ritschlianism, and the efforts of orthodox Protestantism to combat it have met with poor success. More than a decade ago Adolf Zahn ("Abriss ciner Geschichte der evan- gelischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert", 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1893) passed the sharp judgment on Ritschhanism, that it was "a rationalist scepticism and Pelagian moralism, vainly decked out in the truths of the Reformers, the threadbare garment of Lutheranism, for purposes of deceit; the clearest sign of the complete exhaustion and impoverish- ment of Protestantism, which at the end of the nine- teenth century again knows no more than the com- mon folk have ever known: 'Do right and fear no man'." The Cathohc critic will probably see in the scorn for metaj)hysics and the elimination of the int^-llectual factor the chief errors of Ritschlian theology. The separation of faith and knowledge, of theoiogj' and metaphysics, has indeed a long and gkxjmy history behind it. The philosophy of the Renaissance, with its doctrine of the "double truth", erected the fir.«t separating wall between faith and knowledge; this division was increased by Spinoza, when he assigned to faith the role of concerning itself with j)ifi dogmntn, but entrusted to pl)iIosof)hv alone the investigation of truth. Finally a|)i)( ared Kant, who cut the la-st threads which still held together thwlogy and metaphysics. IJy denying the demon- Htrability of the existence of God through reason, he consist/'ntly effected the complete segregation of faith anri knowledge into two ".sei)aratc liouseliolds". In this he was followeri by Schleiermaclicr and Ritschl. Since; rr-cent Modernism, with its Agnosticism and Immanentism, a/lopts the same attitude, it is, whether avowedly or not, the death-knell not only of ChriHtianity, but of evr-ry objective religion. Con.sequently, the n-giilations of I'ius X against Modernism represe-nt a conU-st in which the vital int<'rf!«tH of the Catholic religion are at stake. Ah the foremfwt champion of tlio powers and rights of reawni in its relations with faith, Catholicism is the def<.ri<l»T of the law of causality whidi leads to the knowl#-«|gc (,f rne1ai)hysical and Divine truths, the guardian of a conKtant, eternal, and unalterable truth, and the outspoken focr of every ff»rni of Scep- ticism, Criticism, Relativism, and' PragmatiHm—
always in the interests of Christianity itself, since,
without a rational foundation and substructure,
Revelation and faith would hang unsupported in the
air. In this statement the Catholic opposition to
Ritschhanism in one of the most fundamental points
of difference is sufficiently characterized.
O. Ritschl, Albert RiUchVs Leben (Leipzig, 1892-()). Concern- ing the system consult: Fricke, Mel iphysik u. Dogmalik in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhdllnis unter besonderer Beziehung auf die Rilschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1882); Thikotter, Darstdlung u. Beurteilung der Theologie A. Ritschl's (Leipzig, 1887); Flugel, A. Ritschl's philosoph. Ansichten (Langensalza, 1886); Lipsiu.s, Die Rilschl'sche Theolotie (Leipzig, 1888) ; Harino, Zu Ritschl's VersShnungslehre (Zurich, 1888) ; Herrmann, Der evangel. Glaube u. die Theologie A. Ritschl's (Marburg, 1890); Pfleiderer, Die Rilschl'sche Theologie (Brunswick, 1891); Bertrand, L'ne nouvelle conception de la Redemption. La doctrine de la justifi- cation el de la reconciliation dans le systems theologique de Ritschl (Paris, 1891); Goyau, L'Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1897), 94 sqq.; Garvie, The Ritschlian Theology (Edinburgh, 1899); Kat- TENBUSCH, Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl (Halle, 1903) ; Schoen, Les origines hiUor. de la theoL de Ritschl (Paris, 1893) ; Fabre, Les principes philosophiques de la theol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1894) ; von KuGELCHEN, Grundriss der Ritschl'schen Dogmatik (Gottingen, 1903) ; Swing, The Theology of A. Ritschl (New York, 1901) ; Fabri- civs, Die Entioickelung in R.'s Theol. von 1874-1889 (Leipzig, 1909); Herrmann, tr. Matheson and Stewart, Faith and Morals: I. Faith as Ritschl Defined if; II. The Moral Law, as Understood in Romanism and Protestantism (London, 1910). Cf. also Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), 81 sqq. For refutation consult: Strange, Der dogmatische Erlrag der Ritschl'- schen Theologie nach Kaftan (Leipzig, 1906) ; Schader, Theo- zentrische Theologie, I (I^eipzig, 1909); Edghill, Faith and Fad. A Study of Ritschlianism (London, 1910) (a fundamental work). See also: O. Ritschl in Realencykl. fiir prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1906), s. V. Ritschl, Albrecht Benjamin; American Journal of Theol. (Chicago, 1906), 423 sqq.; Kiefl, Der geschichtl. Christus u. die moderne Philosophie (Mainz, 1911), .51 sqq.
Joseph Pohle.
Ritter, Joseph Ignatius, historian, b. at Schwein- itz, Silesia, 12 April, 17S7; d. at Breslau, 5 Jan., 1857. He pursued his philosophical and theological studies at the University of Breslau, was ordained priest in 1811, and for several years was engaged in pastoral work. An annotated translation of St. John Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood not only obtained for him the doctorate in theology, but also attracted the attention of the Prassian ministry, which in 1823 named him ordinarj'^ professor of church history and patrology at the University of Bonn. Here he made the acquaintance of Hermes, and be- came favourably disposed towards his system. He was in 1830 named professor and canon at Breslau. As administrator of this diocese (1840-43), he atoned for his earlier Hermesian tendencies by his fearless Catholic policy, notably in the question of mixed marriages. Later he published tracts defending the Church against the attacks of Ronge, the founder of the so-called German Catholics. Also worthy of commendation is his beneficence, exercised par- ticularly towards deserving students. His i)rincipal writings which bear on church history anfl canon law are: "Handbuch der Kirchengcscliichte", Elberfeld and Bonn, lS2f)-33; sixth editidu by lOnnen, Bonn, 1862; "Irenicon oder Briefc zur Foixlerung des Friedens zwischen Kirche u. Staat", Leipzig, 1840; "Der Capitularvicar", Munster, 1842; "Geschichte der Dioce.se Breslau", Breslau, 184.'i. With J. W. J. Braun he; brought out- a new (-(jition of Pellicia's work, "De Christiana- ecclcsia- polit la", Cologne, 1829-38.
Bellamy, La Theohgi,: Cilh. au XIX" slide (Paris, 1904), 36.
N. A. Weber.
Ritual. — The Ritual (Riluale Romanum) is one of the f)flici:il books of the Roman Rite. It contains all the services performed by a ])riest that arc not in the Missal and Breviary and has also, for convenience, some that are in those books. It is the latest and still the least uniform book of our rite.
When first ritual functions were written in Imoks, the Sacramentary in tin; \\'est, the Euchologioii in the East contained all the priest's (and bishop's) part of whatever functions they performed, not only th(! holy Liturgy in the strict sense, but all other eacrainents, blessings, sacramentals, and ritea of
