John Allen writes about Cardinal Angelo Scola who will be the new archbishop of Milan. This is what Allen writes: "As opposed to some European prelates, Scola is typically not inclined to handwringing about the “silent apostasy,” in the words of John Paul II, of the West. Instead, Scola tends to believe that Christianity still has culture-shaping capacity, if it finds the nerve to make its case effectively."
What do you think of that statement given the on-going Godless secularization of America and Europe?
READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE. This was written before Cardinal Scola was actually named to Milan by Pope Benedict this morning.
I like the idea of another Italian pope!
22 comments:
I was thinking the Church had been taking baby steps away from Italians in order to have a non-European as Pope. If the Holy Spirit leads us that way of course.
Italian, American, Sri Lankan or Martian, I care only that he be Orthodox and he continue the work begun under HH Pope Benedict in removing the heterodox influences in The Church today.
Honestly, I LIKE that statement.
And sincerely wish that Chrisitanity would get the nerve to stand up again!
~SqueekerLamb
I'd like a Pope like Benedict, but 30 years younger and with teeth and claws!
They definitely soft-peddled the idea that the bishop 'tends' to think Christianity still has the capacity to shape culture. I would hope he was far more convinced than that.
Too bad he did not come to Augusta.
rcg
So, is that the Church's calling...to "shape culture?"
"Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped as high as heaven and God has remembered her iniquities...And the kings of the earth...will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning, they will stand far off and say, 'Alas, thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgement come." (Rev. 18)
Where in Scripture do we find God's concern to be the "shaping" of culture? Where in Christ's teachings and exhortations do we find, "Go thou and shape culture?"
When, in Her interactions with "culture" has the Church not been compromised? The Crusades? The Reformation? The Renaissance? The Enlightenment? Vatican II?
Why did Hosea hate the Monarchy? Because it meant cultural and religious syncretism with the surrounding apostate nations. We never learn. Besides, what a "milque toast" thing to say...
Pin, You've gone overboard again.
Christianity can , and I propose should, most certainly shape culture by having a loud voice and thus influencing culture.
Culture is influenced by the messages that are put out there, via word of mouth, newspaper, TV, radio, internet, etc. If shaping culture isn't part of what Christ wants his Church to do, then why does this blog exist?
Silence is the devil's workshop; and Christianity has been way too silent as of late with regards to spreading Christ's message.
The only voice others hear lately is the rediculous antics of Quran burners and Rapture proclaimers. We're the laughing stock of of the average non-Christian.
Are not all the Church's missionaries influencing culture right where they are working?
Why does Archbishop Dolan, for example, put himself out there with media interviews, hosting a radio show, blogging, etc.? He does it to use these means to spread Christ's word and do his part in influencing/shaping the mass mindset, aka the culture.
Perhaps your rambling was trying to say,
"To be in the world, but not of the world. "
~SqueekerLamb
Squeeker, nothing overboard about it. Any "shaping" of the culture by the Church is merely coincidental...it is not the Church's calling. The Church's calling is to bring men to Christ and save souls. If, through doing this, Christians are produced who in some way reform culture or influence it positively toward the Church, then fine. If not, well, read Rev. 18 again. Culture is Babylon...
Besides, what a weak and pitiful hope for the Church...to merely "shape culture." What kind of nonsense is that? The Church calls us out of "culture," out of the "great City...the Whore." The world and culture are redeemed by Christ, but only through His New Creation and the wrath of His Judgement.
So, I was not saying we should be silent or not witness, only that the purpose has nothing to do with "shaping culture." I find that a disgusting concept...like putting a girdle on Satan.
The good Cardinal didn't say that it was the Church's calling to shape culture. He said it was Christianity's capaicity.
Who can argue with that?
Did you twist his words? If so, I'm sure it was inadvertent, not so that you could have a excuse to 'stand at your podium', as we all know you never would do that.
Having fun with ya' pin :)
But I mean what I've said about the Cardinal and such...
~Squeekerlamb
Squeeker, it may be within the Church's capacity, or potential, to shape culture...but you are not listening. I am making a theological point (I do that some); the Church's nature, calling, mission, and purpose is in no way predicated upon any aspect of culture. The Cardinal's statement was weak, at best.
Now, about my standing at my "podium..." I was given the gift of a theological and pastoral education and calling. I suppose I feel I should not hide it under a bushel, although I am sometimes tempted to do so...like now.
Pin, feel free to succumb to the temptation. I'll bring you a bush if you need one.
Yes, you were make a valid theological point; and you were also going off an a tangent.
With all your education in this field, have you thought about being a Catholic lay celebrity?(especially since you're unlikely to go behind a bush, unless there are no latrines around).
Macon and this blog is too small an audience for you.
~SqueekerLamb
So, Squeeker, where was the tangent? Your reading comprehension skills need honing.
Besides, Squeeker, you and I are on the same page. It is stupid to be squabbling.
Pin,
Where's the tangent you ask?
It is when you start blabbing about the Church's calling instead of Christianity's capacity to shape culture. You try to turn the conversation toward your own personal angle (that shaping the culture is not the Church's calling) and not directly address the issue that was brought out by the author of the posting, namely the statement the Cardinal made about Chrisitanity's capcity to shape culture. His statement needs to be shouted and repeated, not brushed off as too weak and forgotten within your long diatribe about the Chruch's calling, which is a diatribe appropriate for a different discussion.
It's like going to a discussion forum and one guy usurping the conversation.
You say I'm not listening...hmm that must irritate you.
Hey, with your ego you could be the first famous Calvinistic Catholic Celebrity.
~SqueekerLamb
Squeeker, You simply are not listening or reading what I am trying to say. I am not going to argue with you anymore. I usually agree with you and like what you post, but you just don't see my point and seem to be hung up about my participation in the blog. There are others who post as much as I do and who are just as polemical. Why don't you go after them, too? Once again, those of us who have hope for the traditional Catholic Church need to pull together rather than fight. A house divided...etc.
Oh, and Squeeker, why is it "ego" to express a strong opinion? Why is your post not reflective of ego, also.
No, expressing an opinion is not "ego," but assuming your opinion to be the superior last word suggests the presence of an ego that is off the charts. Difficult as it might be, even those with consuming conceit are redeemable.
So that we may properly appreciate your superiority, how about furnishing a bibliography of books and articles of yours that have been published.
And, what gives you the notion that I think my opinion is superior to all others or the last word? I certainly do not believe that. Is it simply because I state it strongly? Should I bow first or make some sissy sounding qualifying statement ahead of time? Please. Instead of whining about my ego, how about presenting a cogent argument about something. Were you jealous of the kids who raised their hands first in school?
Hey, if they hadta go, they hadta go. I was impatient with those who raised their hands to ask questions to which they already knew the answers - stating their questions in ersatz erudite terms. I was there to get an education not to abide pomposity. Guess I haven't changed.
Well, then, since you are so well-educated from not asking questions or abiding pomposity, let's hear a bit about your notions of Church and culture. I would especially like to hear what you think about how Christology should inform the Church's relationship to the world and whether a "Christ of culture" does not imply an adoptionist Christology and a Pelagian world view.
Hey, c'mon, you can use words like "ersatz" and "erudite;" surely you can hold forth on these basic (and ancient) theological problems. You can even start with, "Hey, ya'll, watch 'iss..."
Thanks for making my point.
I'm waiting...don't you have anything intelligent to say about the issue? Guess not?
It is neither pompous nor arrogant to raise an issue or make a theological observation if that is one's background and area of study for years. This is, after all, a religious Blog where presumably the idea is religious discussion.
BTW, are you "Chihuaha" Anonymous that keeps yapping around at Fr. and whining in the other threads? I can't keep all these anonymouses straight.
Post a Comment