Wednesday, August 21, 2013
POPE FRANCIS, KEENLY AWARE OF VATICAN II'S PASTORAL CONSTITUTION CALLING FOR DIALOGUE WITH THE WORLD, MAKES A CASE FOR WHY VATICAN II WAS SO CORRECT IN DOING SO AND CHARTING A NEW COURSE FOR THE CHURCH AFTER VATICAN II
Vatican Radio) Pope Francis met with students and Staff from "Gauken Bunri Seibu Junior High School, in Tokyo Japan. Speaking to the Japanese students in the Courtyard of St Damaso in the Vatican, Pope Francis underlined the importance of discussion and dialogue as a means of bringing about understanding and peace.
The Pope told the students that we can never grow culturally if we are isolated. Instead, he said if we go out and discover other cultures, other ways of thinking and other religions, we emerge from ourselves and “begin the beautiful adventure that is called dialogue.”
Dialogue, stressed Pope Francis is very important because in relation to other cultures and religions, it matures and grows.
But closed minds, continued the Pope can generate misunderstandings and quarrels. All the wars, and problems that are not resolved, happen because of a lack of dialogue.
The Holy Father, said that meekness was an important attribute in dialogue because one listens first and then speaks.
“This is the dialogue that makes peace”, he said.
A Japanese student then thanked the Pope and said the students would put into practice the words they had heard from him.
MY COMMENT: What the pope says about dialogue is very post-Vatican II and builds upon the Second Vatican Council's pastoral desire that the Church, meaning all of us who are baptized, be able to dialogue and learn from one another.
The aim of this pastoral approach is for the pursuit of peace. Closed minds (Church encircled in wagon train style to keep the Indians out) generates misunderstandings and quarrels which lead to wars and problems that are unresolved.
This pastoral approach endorsed by an ecumenical council, meaning the pope and bishops in union with him making authoritative statements even in the pastoral realm, is normative for Catholics to understand and embrace. In particular when subsequent popes reiterate this pastoral plan for the Church.
This is what it means to be Catholic and adhere to the living Magisterium of the Church in the areas of faith, morals, pastoral plans and canon law, even those laws that are man-made, not specifically divine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
It's fascinating to me that the Church was able to expand to every continent before Vatican II told us we should talk to other people.
We sure needed an ecumenical council to sort out that pressing issue!
Anyway, we should dialogue with the Muslims and ask them why they keep abducting bishops, killing priests, and burning Churches. If only we could understand their motivation, the violence would surely cease...
Marc, Catholic countries have gone to war with each other. Catholics have killed Protestants, Protestants have killed Catholics and most recently, but now no longer, in Ireland. It's one thing to be successful in planting the faith, quite another in living out the Faith's radical call to love, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile and treat all people as neighbors.
So, then, it is ok for the Church to cease to exist except as a small and persecuted group. Modern martyrdoms at the hands of Muslims are just fine with you...even to be encouraged a la Tertullian? Once again, we need to look again at Jesus' exhortations to turning cheeks and such and understand that, in many cases, he was talking about Christians' behavior toward one another and that there is also an eschatological aspect to those exhortations. Muslims are not my neighbor...nor do I want them to be.
Father, I agree.
Actions speak louder than words. I go out at visibly live out my faith. If anyone asks me about it, I will give them the full, unwaterred-down truth. I will even invite the person to attend Mass.
Actions speak louder than words. I will not dialogue with anyone who would rather see my head separated from my shoulders.
Father McDonald: Amen to this post!
Gene: “Muslims are not my neighbor...nor do I want them to be.”
Or, as so many Jews in Jesus’s day said: “Samaritans are not my neighbor. . . nor do I want them to be.”
Recently, when the certain Muslims were burning churches in Egypt, other Muslims stood hand in hand with the Copts encircling the church to prevent it from being burned.
Presumably a dialogue led to this cooperation. So that's good. On the other hand, we can be relatively certain that attempting to dialogue with the radical group would have been very dangerous and nonproductive.
This is why dialogue must be done in a prudent manner.
Gosh Father, you're so right. Gene is my neighbor. Hey, Gene.....I love you man. ha
Anon 2, I thought you were't addressing me anymore...oops.
There is a difference in First Century Samaritans and Muslims...or hadn't you noticed.
Catholic, Orthodox leaders in Egypt deny Christian-Muslim conflict (CNS) Speaking on behalf of Catholics in Egypt, Coptic Catholic Patriarch Ibrahim Isaac said the violence and unrest in his country are “not a political struggle between different factions, but a war against terrorism.”
While mobs began attacking Christian churches, schools and convents, claiming the Christians supported Morsi’s ouster, there also were reports of Muslims forming cordons around Christian churches to protect them from the mobs and of Muslims offering shelter to their Christian neighbors.
The Rev. Rafic Greiche, spokesman for the Egyptian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, confirms this (Fides), noting that despite attacks against about 60 churches throughout Egypt, “Muslims who live in the vicinity of the affected churches have helped men and women religious to put out the fires.” Father Greiche adds: “The majority of the population is against terrorism and religious extremism.”
Coptic Pope Tawadros II issued a statement yesterday (AINA) along similar lines. “The attacks on government buildings and peaceful churches terrorize everyone, whether they be Copts or Muslims,” he said. “These actions go against any religion, any moral code and any sense of humanity…”
The Church has always been fostered dialogue with the world, but this dialogue was much simpler before the Modern era. As Pope Paul VI put it in his first encyclical, issued during the Council, the Modern world "is a world which offers to the Church not one but a hundred forms of possible contacts, some of which are open and easy, others difficult and problematic, and many, unfortunately, wholly unfavorable to friendly dialogue". In other words, the Church did not suddenly discover the value of dialogue one day in the 1960's, but did chart a path to adapting her dialogue to the changing and more complex times.
In 1964, the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed that “the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation”, and that “whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (see Lumen Gentium 14). Genuine dialogue is especially important today because the salvation of Modern man depends upon it. Concordats and catechisms are not enough to reach the hearts of the masses anymore.
You are truly amazing, Gene. You even project unintended meaning into what YOU write. I never said I would not address you anymore. YOU said (to me) “I simply will not address you directly anymore...unless you address me.” (“National Chismatic Reporter” thread August 19; your post at 6:39 a.m. today).
Thanks for the clarification about Samaritans and Muslims, Gene. I thought they were the same people and that Muhammad was John the Baptist’s nephew.
Anonymous:
Will you PLEASE stop confusing everyone with facts, aka liberal lies. It really annoys people to have to deal with them.
Anon 2, I thought you had read my response to your double post in the other thread and that you would have certainly agreed not to address each other anymore. Oh, well, let the good times roll then.
Dialogue is one of the stupidest jokes I've ever heard. This is the way it always goes:
"I shall gnash at your ears until I get my way."
Marc: Sorry, I should have included you in my plea to Anonymous.
If anybody can give me five examples of successful ecclesiastical dialogue, I'll shut up.
Since I have sent several posts in this thread, which some may find annoying (both the frequency and the content), and given the “Freudian slip” in the identifier for the last one, I have adopted a new identifier (at least for this thread):
Gene and Father McDonald:
I would be interested in your comments on this interpretation (from Wikipedia, entry for Turning the Other Cheek) regarding turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, etc. in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain:
“A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person ‘turned the other cheek,’ the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off his back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy:
10 ¶ When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.
11 Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee.
12 And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge:
13 In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.
—Deuteronomy 24:10–13 KJV
By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case:
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
—Genesis 9:20–23 KJV
The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.”
Since Jesus was also God as well as Man, I have always assumed he was the smartest human being ever to have lived. It seems to me that this becomes especially clear from passages like this when placed in their historical context. While advocating non-violence, therefore, Jesus perhaps shows us a much better, and more effective, way to resist evil and oppression (contrary to the ultimately and literally self-defeating violence of the Zealots in fighting the Romans, for example), This sort of lesson seems to have been well learned by people such as Martin Luther King and Gandhi.
One: JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church (October 1999)
Two: THE WORD OF LIFE:
A STATEMENT ON REVELATION AND FAITH (1996)
Three: INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES: NATURE, CONSTITUTION AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH (2009)
An exerpt: "67. The members of the Joint Commission are grateful to God for having been able to prepare this document, which displays a large base of agreement in fundamental matters of ecclesiology between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It is their expectation and commitment that on the firm ground of this document further study and discussion will be possible on remaining questions that are on the agenda of the commission."
Four: FIRST ANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION:
AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH I (1976)
Five: CALLED TOGETHER TO BE PEACEMAKERS, Report of the International Dialogue between the Catholic Church and Mennonite World Conference 1998 - 2003(August 2003)
All are available at the VATICAN website under the tab for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
ytc, the only ecclesiastical dialogue that I know of are the ecumenical councils. Some were more successful than others. :-)
All, I'm not sure that I would jump to agree that the Egyptian conflict isn't Muslims versus Christians. But, since I find the Coptic pope to be particularly trustworthy and since they are there and I am not, I'll have to defer to him.
I find it troubling that bishops have been kidnapped in Syria, priests murdered throughout the Middle East, and churches burned in Egypt. The lack of Western media attention to this is frightening. I guess I can't understand the motivation of these radicalized "Muslims" beyond the overtly anti-Christian effect.
I think the Coptic Pope of Alexandria is right that this violence affects everyone, including Muslims. It is difficult to discuss because it just lacks logic. Hopefully there will be an end soon.
Well, I must agree that Ignotus has just given us two examples that might be called successful dialogue...albeit among Christian entities.
The Church was here two thousand years ago and will be here until the end of time.
The barque of Peter encounters turbulance from time to time but it keeps going forward.
The Truth doesn't change. The Faith remains.
Teresa of Avila speaking of her permissive confessors:
"What was venial sin they said was no sin at all and what was serious mortal sin they said was venial. This did me much harm...I went on in this blindness for I believe more than seventeen years
until a Dominican Father, a very learned man, enlightened me about many things."
Now couldn't the above be testimony from someone from our own time?
But Teresa didn't give up. We must endeavor to have the world (or what part of it we can influence) conform to our Faith and not the other way around.
What in any of St John Vianney's sermons is not orthodox? And yet one wonders
how one of his homilies would go over today. When I was younger and became somewhat familiar with
him, the words which came to my mind were along the lines of "extreme" and "reactionary." In
no way did I consider myself to be a liberal or progressive in those days either.
And let's not even go anywhere near St catherine of Siena's "Four torments of hell".
I guess different times call for different rules of spiritual engagement but the substance and
the Truth have to be there. Maybe the pastoral approach will work better in today's culture.
I seems like Pope Francis in some of his homilies and speeches has in mind those great Jesuit missionaries Francis Xavier and Matteo Ricci. I just wonder what approach those two would take given
the woeld we inhabit today.
When they are on the cusp of reuniting with the Church, call me!
Anon 2, Ok, here goes. It may be in a couple of parts.
Wikipedia is not the best source for exegesis. The sources cited there are referring to customs common to several different cultures of the time, but treat the passages from a purely anthropological viewpoint.
I have mentioned before on the blog that The Parables of the KIngdom and the Sermon on the Mount are given in a strong eschatological context. "The ethical instructions of Jesus cannot be divorced from his prophetic announcement of the coming Kingdom of God." (A.N. Wilder, "Eschatology and Ethics in the teachings of Jesus" see also Oscar Cullman, 'The Christology of the NT.")
Also this, "It would be truer to say that the teachings of Jesus, just as much as his miracles and apocalyptic sayings, confronted men prophetically with the sovereignty of God. The sayings are signs of the Kingdom. TO DISCUSS WHETHER THE SERMON CONTAINS A PRACTICAL RULE OF CONDUCT OR AN IDEAL IS BESIDE THE POINT; it brings men into decision before God and their neighbor, and so begins the process of setting them free to share God's coming Kingdom." (Cullman, Grayson) The quotes are to satisfy the uninformed like Anonymous who think I am "baffling with BS." These are real NT theological issues discussed among Biblical scholars for years.
Now, to address the question of turning the other cheek in light of this, Exodus 21 lays out the laws regarding an injured man claiming damages. Jesus counters this legal justification with "do not stand for damages against the man who injures you" (not the poorly translated KJV "resist not evil.") The examples of the slap in the face (normally punishable by a heavy fine), the clothing lawsuit claim, and begging...all these injuries have legal redresses under Hebrew law. Jesus is saying "do not insist on your rights, rather give more than is demanded of you." When Jesus says, "be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven," he is again speaking eschatologically/prophetically. The Aramaic word for "perfect" implies wholeness or a completion...finality.
Just as Pope Benedict says in his book, '"Jesus of Nazareth," Christ is announcing himself as the new Torah, to be completed in the final coming of God's Kingdom.
"Jesus is not fundamentally concerned with the law at all, but with God's sovereign will mediated directly by himself and encountered in personal relations. The fundamental principle is the sharing of the nature of God himself...this is the eschatological aspect." (Cullman, Grayson NT Theology)
cont'd)
Eschatology is a real problem for those who do not believe in the Incarnation, the Real Presence, or the coming of God's Kingdom at the end of history, which is pretty much all of neo-protestantism and liberal (theologically) Catholicism. These folks have to spend their time trying to make sense of (to them) the inscrutable sayings of Jesus and trying to make some kind of ethical collage from His sayings.
Does Christ encourage us to behave towards our neighbor according to His teachings...of course. But, His eschatological framework only serves to highlight our inability to do so and call us to an even greater awareness of, and humility before, His redeeming grace and coming Glory. It is not about human ethics and behavior...it is about the sovereignty and majesty of God.
Well, ytc has a point. If we define "successful dialogue" as protestants re-uniting with the Church then, no, the dialogue has not been successful. But, it is better that protestants and Catholics talk than if they do not. Some will come over, and this is a very positive result...with the caveat that the Church not apologize or water down her dogma, liturgy, and beliefs in order to get prots over. (see Vatican II)
I don’t think this made it through, so here goes again:
Ytc: Depending on what you mean by “ecclesiastical dialogue,” and recalling that Father McDonald refers to “all of us who are baptized,” all you need, I assume, are five examples of a Catholic talking with a non-Catholic as a result of which the non-Catholic has a greater understanding of and sympathy for our Faith, and perhaps even begins to make the journey towards Rome.
I will give you one (and can give you many others): The personal and gentle “dialogue” my Catholic tutor at Oxford had with me, a baptized Anglican but effectively un-churched, was a major step on my journey to Rome.
Gene:
Thank you for that helpful exegesis. The eschatological dimension makes a lot of sense to me. But, as you seem to acknowledge yourself, it is not incompatible with trying to begin living in the Kingdom now to the extent we can with God’s grace. Am I right, then, to detect a tension in your final paragraph when you say: “Does Christ encourage us to behave towards our neighbor according to His teachings...of course. But, . . .[i]t is not about human ethics and behavior...”? And would it not be more accurate, therefore, to say “It is not only [primarily?] about human ethics and behavior”?
So, for example, if the Jews had engaged in “passive resistance” rather than armed rebellion against Rome (which was historically stupid and futile), i.e., if they had “gone the extra mile” or “turned the other cheek,” than perhaps there would have been no Diaspora and humanity might have been spared much grief. Just imagine how history would have been different. It boggles the mind! Or am I stretching?
What some are referring to as "ecclesiastical" here is, in fact, interreligious. Ecclesiastical refers to intra-Church discussion, which is why I cited the Ecumenical Councils as examples of successful ecclesiastical dialogue.
As for successful interreligious dialogue, I think Fr. Kavanaugh is on to something with his list. The most prominent document he lists is, to my mind, the joint declaration with the Lutherans. However, to show how complicated interrelious dialogue can be, consider that this was a nice step in our dialogue with the Lutherans, but simultaneously presented a major set-back in our discussions with the Orthodox.
Interreligious dialogue, then, seems like the arcade game "Whack-a-Mole." I'm not saying that theologians shouldn't discuss such things, but those discussions should mostly remain at a very high theological level because of the potential for misunderstanding. As we've seen here, not to disparage Anonymous 2 and Gene, but their discussions is at odds because they are discussing two different planes of thought.
That itself illustrates another important function of interreligious dialogue: to understand what each other's terms mean. This sort of thing isn't particularly necessary at the level Anonymous 2 describes with the beginnings of his conversion. But, the high-minded theological discussions have to take place in such a way -- preferably away from those of us who easily misunderstand. To use a crass colloquialism, it seems interreligious discussion is somewhat like making sausage. Although, I'm not certain it is meant for most of us to even consume the finished product...
Henceforth, and on the promptings of Gene, I will use my real name, which is Cameron. I live in the Diocese of Charleston.
ytc=Cameron
Anon 2, I agree that there is a tension. I think the danger of the tension is that we substitute a human initiative for the true encounter with Christ as the coming Redeemer, without which there can be no true encounter with our neighbor. I use the term "encounter" guardedly because of its close association with existential theology and its humanistic philosophy.
I think we have to be somewhat theologically absolutist regarding your last question. When we insert the "only" (it is not only about human ethics , but also about God") it diminishes the eschatological reality of Christ's teachings and introduces a qualification that opens the door to humanistic inroads. We should at least reverse the order, as in, "It is not only about eschatology and God's sovereignty, but also about human ethics." I don't really like that either...in my understanding of NT theology, there can be no human ethic, no justice, outside the sovereignty of God and the coming Kingdom. It is a kind of theological fundamental in both Catholic theology and protestant theology that salvation history is not predicated upon any human initiative. Human ethical systems are pretty meaningless when viewed against the demands of God and the teachings of Christ. I have been called by a professor a "Christological totalitarian." I considered it a compliment.
Re: The Jews in Rome. I think the Romans would have probably just slaughtered them anyway. I think the Diaspora was a foregone conclusion...but, I am no historian of ancient Judaism. From what I do know of the Roman emperors of the time, I doubt the Jews would have ever fared well.
We are called to holiness, which is to say (in todays world), to be a sign of contradiction. Dialogue is never a bad thing as long as the proper approach is taken. It should never be an avenue of accomodation to or acceptance of that which goes against the True Faith. The dialogue of the Catholic should have as its end the enlightenment of another to recognize what is the True Faith and to
hopefully have that person take it into their heart and convert. That will not always be the result
of course but a less ambitious,more reachable and in some parts of the world a more necessary goal
is that of reaching some kind of mutual accord where differing groups can exist together in peace.
Faith in Christ crucified, Hope in Christ resurrected, and in all things Love…
Marc:
I really do appreciate your good faith and good efforts to identify why Gene and I have difficulties in communicating. But I don’t think you have identified the root problem. It is my sense that Gene simply does not trust me, and that this is the root of the problem. And it goes without saying that you cannot have effective and productive dialogue, ecclesiastical, ecumenical, inter-faith, or indeed most types of dialogue, unless certain “dialogic norms” are observed, uppermost of which is probably mutual trust. That is why I have urged Gene to stop trying to sniff out heresy. apostasy, heterodoxy, etc, in every post on the Blog. It destroys trust and warps one’s perspective. Hopefully, he is beginning to change, at least with regard to me.
The best, of course, is to meet in person for face-to-face discussions. If you recall, I tried to arrange for a face-to-face “study group” to examine Vatican II documents in light of various pre-Vatican II documents. My offer to arrange a face-to-face group meeting, including Gene and Pater Ignotus, still stands – either for that purpose or for another purpose. Perhaps we could all just have a civilized lunch to begin with. But Gene will have to stop quoting Second John 7-11.
And, of course, I also look forward to meeting people individually, such as lunch with your good self.
Well, I have just given you a brief theological analysis of the eschatology of the Sermon on the mount and the Parables of the Kingdom, complete with references and quotes. No ad hominem, no nonsense. It is standard, orthodox Biblical theology in keeping with what Pope Benedict wrote in his book on Jesus. It is compatible with both Catholic and Protestant orthodoxy. If one does not agree with it, then there are more liberal analyses based upon what we used to call a "realized eschatology," meaning that the Kingdom has already come in us and we must implement a perfect society on earth...no Resurrection, no Parousia, no Incarnation...adoptionist Christology and all that. If that is one's position, fine. At least, perhaps, my post will start some thinking and reading or appeal to some on the theological fence.
I will not participate in discussions of Vat II over a meal or for very long over a beer. It would only induce nausea. There are better topics of conversation.
"Well, I must agree that Ignotus has just given us two examples that might be called successful dialogue."
Well, Gene, I'm afraid that even you--maligned as you are in some quarters--must be more sensitively attuned to successful dialogue between the Church and Christian sects than I am. What are the two "successful examples" that you refer to?
"Ecumenical" dialogue is that which takes place between/among Christian denominations.
"Interfaith" or "Interreligious" dialogue is that which takes place between Christians and people of other religions.
"Ecclesiastical" dialogue I took to mean ecumenical, and the FIVE examples of successful dialogue are examples of ecumenical talks.
Good point, Fr. Kavanaugh. I was incorrect in my attempt to be precise. Thank you for the correction.
Is there any connection between the Catholic-Anglican discussions and the creation of the Anglican Ordinariate? If so, I'd count that as a huge success for ecumenical discussion. For example, in my archdiocese, the Ordinariate group has already grown to the point that they were just given a share of a church instead of the small room in which they began.
I also understand there are rumblings about a Lutheran Ordinariate. This is surely linked to the Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration. That'd be another huge success that we might soon see.
Unfortunately there are some ecumenists who disparage the Anglican Ordinariate as unecumenical and criticized Pope Benedict for establishing it. Yet. Pope Benedict makes clear in allowing this form of Catholic unity with Reformation denominations as the true way to Christian unity, based upon acceptance of Catholicism without compromise but also allowing legitimate traditions liturgically and otherwise that have evolved in these separated communions.
Thus it would be possible for high Lutherans to have a similar arrangement. Pope Benedict was the Pope of Christian unity!
Those liberals who promote ecumenism want the Catholic Church to accept the Protestant denominations as they are now by bringing Catholicism down to their level of theology and doctrine. They almost succeeded.
Ignotus, I thought the two examples you gave, the Lutheran accord on Justification by Faith and the Mennonite dialogue were examples of, if not successful, then certainly fruitful dialogue between Catholics and protestant denominations.
One of the interesting things about ecumenism and these ordinariates, as you've pointed out, is that it almost forces "regular" Catholics to step up the liturgy. These groups treasure their liturgy in a way many Catholics have forgotten or set aside. The banal nature of the current Mass as typically experienced is anti-ecumenical. It hurts our dialogue with these Protestant groups, as well as with the Orthodox.
There was also an article recently about why young people are leaving evangelicalism -- it is for liturgy.
I thought you might be interested in these pictures from the Mobile ordinariate website. I haven't been able to go there yet since it's a couple hours away, but I'm looking forward to it.
http://stgregorymobile.org/pictures
Gene:
I appreciate the improved tone and trust that we will continue in that manner. Here is my problem with minimizing the ethical dimension in favor of the eschatological: What to make of the hundreds of pages in the CCC on Catholic morality in Part Three, which the Catechism describes as follows:
“The third part of the Catechism deals with the final end of man created in the image of God: beatitude, and the ways of reaching it—through right conduct freely chosen, with the help of God’s law and grace (Section One), and through conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God’s Ten Commandments (Section Two).”
Again, do we detect here in your positions the continuing influence of Protestantism and the famous tension between Faith and Works? I take it from your earlier post (10:15 p.m. yesterday), however, that you are not opposed to theologically based ethics, just purely secular systems of ethics. Have I understood correctly?
Personally, as a Catholic, I prefer the former. But then I also try to remember what Pope Francis says about atheists and how we can meet by “doing good.” Isn’t it possible that someone who seeks to “do good” in a way that is compatible with Catholic morality is responding to the promptings of God even though they themselves do not realize that? And might dialogue about the overlap even provide an opening for prudent evangelization?
To jump into the fray with A2 and Gene, I mentioning yesterday the importance of the pope's admonition that we can meet atheists and others in good works, and that may be the beginnings of their conversion once they recognize these works as caused by, rooted in, and directed toward God.
In the current pseudo-intellectual climate amongst people of my generation and younger (I am 30), not only do I see this as important, I think it is critical. There is a tendency amongst these people now to see materialism and atheism as the only intellectually supportable position. Of course with a college degree (usually in the liberal arts), such people are just educated enough to be dangerous to themselves. Coupled with the indoctrination into leftist political theory in most colleges, these people are unlikely to even give Catholicism a second look, assuming it to be illogical and backward.
Since we are unlikely to start a meaningful dialogue about theology and philosophy (which would be nearly impossible because of the preconceptions on their side), it is pivotal to give the sort of example that prompts them to ask questions of themselves and us.
In this case, I certainly stand with the Pope. This is an incredible insight. We can't just act like only Catholics can do good. But, when given the opportunity, we have to explain why we are doing good and the radical difference in our viewpoints and ultimate goals particularly.
Going further, we should discuss the theology behind works and point out that our good works are meritorious when done in a state of grace. Thus, there is a difference in the theological "blueprint" behind our works and non-Catholics, whose works are surely pleasing to God insofar as they are rendered as possibly unintentional prayers for such a ones conversion. Meritorious works, though, can merit grace in a different way and are salvific.
Perhaps the various sections of the Catechism are getting at discussing works in these two ways: colloquially and theologically.
Anon 2, I don't see that we really disagree here at all. Certainly, what you say about the CCC is true as a moral guide for life and behavior. I do not really see an either/or conflict here with a primarily eschatological understanding of Jesus' teachings. He intended us to use his teachings as guides for life while realizing that we will not, through following them, bring about a perfect, or even a good society on earth. Only he can do that in the coming Kingdom.
RE: Faith/works tension. yes, you probably do detect that, but it is not just a protestant tension. Augustine, Scotus, Aquinas, and Anselm all dealt with it, too. The problem with the protestant view is that, theologically, it does become either/or...which is part of why I am now Catholic.
Marc: "Is there any connection between the Catholic-Anglican discussions and the creation of the Anglican Ordinariate?"
My impression--though not having followed these discussions carefully--is that the answer is No. None, nada, zilch.
That, to the contrary, those who supported this ecclesiastical dialogue between Catholics and mainstream (liberal) institutional Anglicans-Episcopalians are decidedly unenthusiastic about or antagonistic to the Anglican ordinariates. I recall one who commented that Benedict's "unfortunate" move to welcome traditionalist Anglicans into the Church mean the the "fruitful" Catholic-Anglican dialogue was now "dead".
Indeed, so far as I know, none of these ecumenical dialogues has been directed toward evangelization in the sense of motivating Protestant groups to return to communion with the Church,
Henry, can you explain why certain people are against the ordinariate? I don't understand... Are they upset when ecumenism results in conversion?
Marc, I know of not a single instance in post-Vatican decades when ecumenism resulted in conversion. Conversion has not been a goal--and return to the Church has not been a goal of modern Catholic ecumenism. Far from it.
The impetus for the Anglican ordinates came from traditionalist Anglicans who, through it all, remained "more Catholic than the Catholics". Indeed, they are Anglicans who considered themselves Catholic, often celebrating the Tridentine Mass in Latin and/or in the beautiful heiratic English of the
"English missal",though many adopting the Novus Ordo but celebrating it in a much more traditional manner than typical among Catholics (often in Latin and/or ad orientem), preserving devotion to the BVM, believing in purgatory, practicing Eucharistic worship in Benediction, saying the Roman Divine Office in translation using the "Anglican Missal", etc.
Their request for Anglican ordinates in communion with the Catholic Church came as a result of the disintegration of the Anglican communion and its general loss of faith. so that those Anglicans still Catholic in spirit saw no hope for its future. It had nothing whatsoever with the established Anglican-Catholic dialogue.
Surely it is obvious why many Catholic bishops presiding over dioceses in similar states of disrepair--including most of those in England--as well as the corresponding Anglicans, would have no enthusiasm for such traditional Anglicans.
They had already severed institutional connections with the Anglican Communion, and for progressive Catholics were "not the kind of new Catholics we want."
That's an interesting point, Henry. I guess it wasn't so obvious because I didn't come to it on my own! I'm afraid that, like the Eastern Catholics, they will be forced to ruin their liturgy in favor of Neo-Roman usages. In fact, that has already happened to some extent when they are forced to say the Novus Ordo...
Marc, to get the flavor of the worship of Anglo-Catholics, you might like to take a look of the Anglican Use Mass video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M
One might wonder whether the typical Catholic will ever see an OF Mass as sacral as this one, chanted ad orientem, Roman Canon in hieratic Elizabethan English, about as Tridentine in ars celebranda as a vernacular Mass can be.
Post a Comment