New Post on "Year of Grace"

For those of you following my conversion story on my "retro-blog" Year of Grace, there is a new entry for you to read.

Genuine Interfaith Relations is not about Mix'n'Match Religion

At a very pleasant dinner last night with members and friends of the Australian Intercultural Society and the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission, I was talking to some of my good Muslim friends about the recent series on the ABC's Compass program "The Quiet Revolution" (you can read transcripts here and here). I think "revolution" is much too strong a word for the sort of nonsense these programs cover. "The Quiet Loony-Fringe" might have been more accurate.

Both my Muslim friends and I agreed that this sort of stuff--mix'n'match, make-it-up-as-you-go-along religion--is of absolutely no help whatsoever to the promotion of understanding and peaceful harmony between the followers of the world's religions. Consider:

Susanna Weiss-Interfaith Minister
One thing about being on this sort of cutting edge of inter-faith, is that there is no great history, there is no Mother Church, there is no dogma, there is no, it’s kind of like wide open, so the creativity of it, and what was going to come just started to open up at my ordination.

Just for the record, folks, this stuff is not "Interfaith Dialogue" of the kind that the Catholic Church practices. And neither I nor my Muslim friends would have a bar of interfaith dialogue if we thought that it was.

Recently on the First Things blog, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote about "The First Openly Muslim Priest" makes the following observations:

The question is whether such doctrinal compromise actually creates interfaith opportunities. Not only is this approach unlikely to bolster interfaith activities, but it may actually undermine them. The available evidence suggests that interfaith dialogue is least effective when those engaging in it do not have their feet firmly planted in their own faith traditions...

Conservative Christians and Muslims alike have expressed skepticism about interfaith dialogue and activities precisely because they fear it will lead to bizarre new doctrines such as that held by Redding. Christians and Muslims need not feel ashamed that their respective faiths make irreconcilable truth claims. Nor should they see interfaith dialogue as an attempt to bridge the considerable theological gap between these faiths...

The highest purpose of interfaith dialogue is not to create some strange hybrid religion that reconciles two faiths that make competing truth claims. Rather, at its best, interfaith dialogue can help people build relationships of understanding, respect, and cooperation even though they adhere to faiths that cannot simultaneously be true [his emphasis--and I agree].

Pope Blesses Cat?

I found this one on "The Cafeteria is Closed". I like it. Now the real question is: What was the Holy Father doing? Blessing the Cat? Patting the Cat? Attempting to sneek a pat to the cat while making it look like he was giving it a blessing? (I suspect the last--I understand that the Vatican beurocrats have banned cats in the papal appartments, and the Holy Father is probably starved of feline affection).

Memes...

I have been dobbed in for a few memes lately and have had no interest in following these up (eg. what car would Jesus drive. Really.)

I wasn't dobbed in for this one started by Marco, but I like it. He calls it the "Saintly Dinner Meme":

If you could invite your five favorite saints to dinner, what would you serve them to eat and drink, and why?

St Peter
Fish. Appropriately enough.

St John the Apostle
A "heavenly feast" along the lines of Isaiah 25: "a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear."

Venerable John Henry Newman
A five course meal, including both "the soup and the fish" so we could discuss one another's conversions between them.

St Thomas More
Roast Beef and red wine. He was English, right?

Martin Luther
Okay, okay, I know that he wasn't a saint (some would say he was the exact opposite), but I would like to enjoy some "table talk" with him over a good Wittenberg beer.

Jesus of Nazareth - the Search for a book

I note that many Australians (Marco included) have been having trouble getting a hold of the Pope's book "Jesus of Nazareth". I had mine on pre-publication order with one firm that still doesn't have it in stock, but was able to find a copy early on at the Central Catholic Bookshop which got its hands on a few cartons (fallen off the back of a truck?). I am about half-way through it (reading interupted by Harry Potter VII, would you believe?) and am enjoying the simple pleasure of reading about a subject that is dear to the author's heart and mine.

But spare a thought for the poor folk in the Congo--which seems even more isolated (just) than Australia.

I wasn't going to blog on this but...

I wonder how many of can sincerely say that was never at least once when we acted in such a way that would have caused us shame and dishonour if someone had maliciously videoed us in the act and posted it on U-Tube with the result that a year later the media started hounding us mercilessly? I myself can think of at least two instances which I am not going to tell you about.

I do not wish to be the cause of furthering such dishonour, so I mention no names or circumstances. Those who know what I am talking about will know, the rest of you don't need to. If you leave a comment, please make it about yourself and in terms that are generic and do not refer directly to the case which has prompted this blog.

Perhaps those who do know might like to think how we would have acted/reacted in similar circs. Maybe this is one of those points at which we should start to show some of that "trade-mark" Catholic concern for justice that we keep hearing about.

The word "Child" means precisely what I intend it to mean. Nothing less and nothing more.

While we have been looking at the meaning of the word "Church", there is another word that has become seriously wobbly of late: the word "Child".

International (and possibly even interstate) readers will not be aware that our Parliament here in the State of Victoria is looking at removing abortion from the criminal law and incorporating it instead into the Health Act. The surprise and completely voluntary resignation yesterday of both our Premier and Deputy-Premier is not likely to have much effect upon this debate.

There was a very challenging article in yesterday's edition of The Age, by Rita Joseph entitled "The Right to Life is the Most Challenging of All". In this article, she argues that

Such an attack on laws that protect unborn children contravenes the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognised the child before birth as having human rights to be protected by the rule of law.

Not being any expert in International Law, I still thought she might be drawing a bit of a long bow when saying that the 1948 Declaration explicity recognised the rights of the the child before birth. She is on more solid ground, I reckon, with the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which does include the following "whereas":

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

Of course the weakness here is in the phrase "appropriate", which seems to be left up to each individual state to decide.

Nevertheless it was a valiant attempt to point out that abortion must really be considered under these categories of the basic human right to life and the rights of the unborn child.

But it was no surprise to read a letter to the Editor in this morning's edition by John Tobin, senior lecturer in the faculty of law at the University of Melbourne, entitled: "International law silent on abortion". Here he contends (quite possibly rightly--he is rather more expert in these matters than me):

Rita Joseph (Opinion, 27/7) is entitled to raise concerns in relation to Victorian MP Candy Broad's attempt to decriminalise abortion. But she has no basis upon which to enlist international human rights law in support of her view. International law is silent on abortion and provides no rights to the unborn child.

The disturbing bit is what comes next, when Tobin writes:

When states drafted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the question of when life began was one of the most contentious matters. Catholic states wanted life to begin at conception, while numerous Western states, including Australia, preferred birth. The result is a compromise — each country is entitled to determine when childhood and life begins. There is no foundation to argue that the right to life under international law prohibits abortion.

Well. That must just about blow the whole business of human rights in general and rights of the child in particular out of the water. What possible meaning can it have to affirm that each humanbeing/child has the inalienable right to life and "appropriate legal protection", if it is then left up to each particular state to define for its own purposes what or who a humanbeing/child actually is.

The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights was meant to protect us against the likes of this fellow (pictured) and his ideas ever rising to the surface of the human political pond again. Lewis Carroll's character pictured above might seem a little cuddlier, but madness is their common denominator.

This makes me wild... Andrew Hamilton on the CDF Clarifications

I am truly thinking of writing a book at some stage outlining, clarifying and defending the Catholic Church's understanding of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. I have spent a very, very long time thinking all these things through, from a point of deep skepticism at times, until I feel that I can comprehend what is going on in the "mind of the Church" (all part of my project of "sentire cum ecclesia"). I don't pretend that I have understood it all yet, however, everytime something comes up that is clearly a part of the magisterial teaching and yet does not fit the model that I had built up in my own mind, my first presumption is that it my model of ecumenism/interfaith relations that is wanting, not the teaching of the magisterium.

It will come as no surprise to you, gentle reader, that there are many Catholics who do not use this method. This can be seen in the reaction to the recent CDF Clarifications on The Doctrine on the Church. Stephen Crittendon, on the Religion Report, didn't even bother to seek to speak to a Catholic theologian on the matter of the document, and reported that the document was trumpeting "We are the Champions"--and he played an extract from the Queen hit to rub it in. Thanks, Stephen, you're a real help. (If you can't hear my voice dripping with sarcasm in that last comment, you're not listening.)

For a Catholic comment, we go to Andrew Hamilton at Eureka Street, in an article "Ecumenical Roads no longer lead to Rome". Here again we find the common failure to attempt to "think with the Church", and the all too common attitude that the teaching of the Church is "lacking". Implication? Fr Andrew thinks he could have done it better, that he understands this better than those people in their ivory towers there in the Vatican.

He concludes:

In attentive conversation it is possible to say honestly that in Catholic understanding, only the Catholic Church embodies structurally the fullness of church and ministry. But to imply that other churches are not really churches, and that their ministry is not really Christian ministry, would fail to attend to the way in which Christians, including Catholics, commonly use words. The implication of the claim is gratuitously offensive. We should presume that the offence was not intended. But if it is to be avoided, a different kind of attention is needed.

Yes indeedy, there is the problem, folks: the way that "Christians, including Catholics, commonly use [these] words", that is words like "Catholic", "Church", "Christian", "Ministry", "Apostolic" etc. If Fr Andrew was paying attention, he would have realised that the way we "use words" was precisely what the Clarification was about. It was intended to clarify the precise meaning of words in the Catholic lexicon.

In fact, this is how I see the problem with most of the commentary on the document:

1) The commentator disputes the meaning of the word "Church" as clarified by the authors of the document
2) The commentator decides to continue reading the document using his own defintion of the word "Church"
3) This of course gives meanings to the statements of the document which are not those intended by the authors
4) The commentator condemns the document for saying what its authors never actually said.

It is axiomatic when interpreting any document that you must seek to understand the meaning of words in their own context. Imagine reading a dictionary definition of the word "cat". Eg. "A cat is a small feline carnivorous mammal. They make good household pets". But hold on a minute, since I believe that a cat is in fact a kind of small elephant, this defintion is obviously wrong in asserting that it would make a good household pet.

Back to Fr Andrew's piece. He himself gets it all hopelessly wrong when he says that the Second Vatican Council taught that

the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Council asserted no such thing. It asserted that

The sole Church of Christ ... subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him

. The Catholic Church does not equal the "Roman" Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is that thing of which we speak in the Creed, the Una Sancta Catholic et Apostolica, it is not the Western Latin Church, much less is it a denomination. The Una Catholica is a communion of Churches which, the council insisted, have communion with the See of Peter as an essential mark of their belonging to that communion.

Nor is this a matter of "structures", as Fr Andrew tries to make out. That suggests to the modern mind that document is insisting upon some human, earthly, political characteristic as essential to the Church. The document does not talk about structures, but about communion, which is a spiritual reality, which grows out of the common Christian heritage of God's word and sacraments.

Moreover, it is simply being mischievous to suggest that the document says that the ministry of those not in full communion with the Catholic Church is "not really Christian ministry". The document says nothing about whether or not a group or its members are "Christian"--it is talking about the proper application of the word "Church" in Catholic theology.

Let's be quite clear. The document does not state that "only Roman Catholics are Christian", and it expressly states that "the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church".

That, I think, is not a miserly statement. It is certainly more generous toward the Orthodox than they are towards us, and it is much more generous than the attitude of those Protestants who believe that Catholics "are not Christian, although there may be true Christians among them."

Broken communion--which is what currently exists among Christians and what the ecumenical movement is seeking to overcome--is a two way street. Those not in full communion with the Holy See are not so because the nasty old Pope doesn't want to be in communion with them. Our separated brothers and sisters are separated from us because they judge us or our doctrine not to be truly Christian.

Fr Andrew Hamilton is right: Ecumenical roads do not "lead to Rome". There is only one ecumenical road and it leads to Christ. Nevertheless, Catholic ecclesiology--and in fact ecumenical logic--asserts that you can't walk this ecumenical road without seeking to walk it alongside of and in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The Holy Father or the Godfather?

Okay, Boyz, zis time ve show zem ve mean business, ya?

A Cardinal in the Car

Last night I had the extreme pleasure of playing "driver" for Idris Edward Cardinal Cassidy, taking him to the Jewish Holocaust Centre here in Melbourne for one of his (now very rare) public speaking events. The topic for the night was "The Effect of the Holocaust on Christian and Jewish Theology", and the other guest speakers were Rev. Tim Costello and Rabbi Fred Morgan.

Rabbi Fred is the Senior Rabbi at Temple Beth Israel, the largest Progressive Synagogue here in Melbourne. He is a great scholar and worthy successor to the grand old gentleman, Rabbi John Levi. Tim Costello is a Baptist minister, currently the CEO of World Vision Australia and one time mayor of St Kilda--but most people know him as the brother of our Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello. I have often wished I could be a fly on the wall at Costello Christmas dinners...

Driving the Cardinal meant that I was personally able to thank him for all his work on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999), and pointed out the great role that it played in my life journey. (I also pointed out that Dominus Iesus was also a significantly POSITIVE document in my life, which caused him to chuckle!). Re the JDDJ, he said that it was probably the most significant achievement in all his time as the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. When God asks him to give an account of his stewardship on judgement day, he said that he could at least point to that. There may be those of you out there who have a poor opinion of the Joint Declaration, but one needs to acknowledge what a significant step forward it has been in the ecumenical endeavour. It is taking time, but it is having its effect also in the Catholic Church, as Catholics themselves are re-owning the importance of stressing that all salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone.

Which leads to the topic of the evening: "The Effect of the Holocaust on Christian and Jewish Theology". We have been talking in these pages about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the new mass.

(By the way, in my conversation with the Cardinal--who was asked about this prayer at the recent International assembly of the Council of Christians and Jews in Sydney--and came across a little unsure of the detail--I pointed out that the Motu Proprio is actually a good thing for the Jewish-Catholic relationship because at least it puts in place the mechanisms by which that particular prayer might be modified; a point which he said he will use in the future if asked about it again.)

In my little blog on the prayer and its implications, I pointed out that

The experience of the Shoah has awakened the Church to the deplorable history of anti-semitism in relation to which it has not been innocent. It will take much time, effort, prayer and charity for the parameters of our new relationship to be fully revealed.

This was basically the theme of last night's very well attended event. Tim Costello talked a lot about the Protestant history during the Holocaust--with special mention of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Fred Morgan pointed out the well known fact that Melbourne has the greatest number of holocaust survivors outside of Israel--or at least that it did: he said that about 50% of the funerals he conducts are for survivors, and so the numbers are fast falling. Nevertheless, the effects of that event are still very evindent in those known as "Second- or Third-generation survivors".

Fred's presenation was actually quite hard hitting for the Jewish audience. The theme of the evening was "theology"--and Fred opined that in fact most Jews are fairly lazy about this, prefering to emphasise practice over theology. However, one cannot say "I belive in God" or "I don't believe in God" without asking who this God is about whom we form such opinions. He outlined three major areas of Jewish reflection on the Shoah: 1) The Shoah as a punishment from God for unfaithfulness, 2) What the Shoah says about the nature of God (eg. God was in hiding during this time / Or The Shoah shows that God is not an interventionist who directly acts for his people), 3) the importance of the land of Israel and Zionism (this latter as a theological construct and not just a political or historical or sociological reality). While he did not personally agree with all the ideas put forward, he pointed out the need to answer these questions. This rather stirred up the Jewish audience.

However, Cardinal Cassidy was the first to speak, and he did so starting with the Second Vatican Council's statement on the Jews in Nostra Aetate--a statement that was a direct result of Catholic reflection upon the horror of the Shoah--and the question of her own implication in it. He ended by refering to the US document Reflections on Covenant and Mission--something for which I chided him afterwards in the car, saying "You were a little bit naughty in suggesting that this was the accepted teaching of the Church?" "Well, its on the table", he replied.

Yes, it is on the table, and as such is a valuable document. The Cardinal also told me how significant the night's event was. When he began in Jewish Catholic dialogue after the Council, the Catholic contingent wanted to talk theology. But the Chief Rabbi got up and said that if they wanted to continue in this vein, then the dialogue would end right here. Theological dialogue was off the table. Whatever the reason for this was (fear of Christian proselytism most likely), the Cardinal noted that in the last ten years or so, there has been a definite openness to talking theology together. I added that the area in which I see this theological dialogue most apparent is when we Christians and Jews get together over the Hebrew Scriptures and start doing exegesis together. (Believe me, it is a very rewarding experience listening to the Rabbis expound scripture).

So here we were last night talking theology. But not only were we doing theology together, we were also talking about the elephant in the room, the Holocaust. (The fact that the German Consul-General and the Polish Consul were present is also significant). You will remember that a few blogs ago, I was suggesting that modern Judaism is Judaism Mk IIA. In fact, post-Holocaust Judaism is possibily even Judaism Mk III. There was a strong suggestion last night that the experience of the Shoah has permanently altered modern Judaism. It certainly led to the establishment of the Zionist dream: their own state in their own homeland for the first time in over two thousand years. This is a big difference--I wonder if it is not a sort of "paschal event", a dying in the Shoah, and a rising in the State of Israel. (Perhaps that is saying too much, though).

Nevertheless, we Christians need to recognise that as we go about our evangelising mission (a mission to reach every nation of the world, and excluding no human being), speaking to our Jewish brothers and sisters will require a special sensitivity. Good pastors know that it is not the time, when dealing with traumatised victims of tragedy, to come on heavy with an appeal for conversion. Context, as I think I have said before, is everything, and we Christains need to be aware that the context of the modern Christian-Jewish relationship is squarely that of "Post-Holocaust".

Thank God that we are at least talking theology with one another now. In that, I predict that we will become even more dependant upon the Jewish theologians than in the past--especially in the areas of scriptural exegesis and theodicy. We need to ask ourselves what it is that we as Christians can offer the Jewish people--and our answer had better be something other than the obliteration of their identity. Otherwise we may be in danger of being seen as the ones who handed Hitler a posthumous victory...

Hi folks! Still here!

Just quickly popping in to say I am still here and have been reading the great discussion on the end of the last post.

I have been attending a super colloquium on Deus Caritas Est at the local John Paul II Institute here in Melbourne. Some great speakers. Check out the program and be jealous!

Janet Smith is a real hoot. Apparently she had them rolling in the aisles at the Anima Conference on Saturday. They want to get her back for the Melbourne Comedy Festival next year. Her impersonation of a young lad's reaction to his girl friend's reply to his question "Will you have sex with me?" (her reply was: "Are you ready to marry me?") was priceless.

The real highlight of the day though was Holy Mass celebrated by Bishop Peter Elliott in the JPII chapel. The beauty of the liturgy just shone through. It was a simple mass but he celebrated it with such dignity that I was just carried away to the third heaven. He caught us all by surprise when we reached the Holy, Holy, Holy of the Liturgy, and he entoned "Sanctus,..." I knew the words but was only vaguely aware of the classic Gregorian setting. Agnus Dei likewise (although we didn't sing the Pater Noster--I know that one!). Good sermon by the assistant priest, and Communion in both kinds. If the Mass was like this in the days of Luther, I don't think there would have been a Reformation. Mass celebrated with this degree of decorum and attention may even be the salvation of the modern Church...

Trust a Catholic Priest to fudge the doctrine of Original Sin...

In a recent Encounter program on ABC Radio National entitled "The Innoncents", several folk from differing disciplines (not necessarily theological) offer serious challenges to the old rejoinder against the Christian doctrine of original sin: "But how can you say that an innocent baby is sinful?" For exmample:

Bonnie Miller-McLemore: Well, it [Augustine's observation that even an infant can display sinful jealousy and greed] sort of appeals to me, because it reveals the complexity of human nature from the very beginning. And with my own children, it's really easy when you just have one child - I have three - and when your firstborn is small, they do appear, and they are, incredibly wonderful, wondrous beings. On the other hand, when you bring another infant into that, a sibling, my husband and I would laugh, because that did seem to be more illustrative of some of the emotional - let us even say moral, spiritual - taints of competitiveness, of desire, or conflict, or tension. So we saw this more when we had two children than when we just had one. And it's not that our first was just a perfect little being till the second was born, they're three years apart, and in fact there might be other places where I can look back and think about struggles, conflicts, tensions, intent to do wrong at a very young age.

But then there is this tripe from none other than a Catholic priest (I won't name him to save embarrasment and discredit):

David Rutledge: It was lovely to see the babies [coming to be baptised] this morning in those white robes, which I guess would be a traditional symbol of innocence. Is that how you see it?

Father Fudge [not his real name]: It is, certainly, a child wearing white is a sign of their innocence.

Who taught this guy his liturgical theology? The white robe is a symbol of being clothed in the purity of Christ--ie. having our sin forgiven. Unfortunately the practice of bringing babies to the font already clothed in white (instead of baptising the child naked an putting on the white clothes afterward) has given all the wrong ideas. See how Lex orandi affects the Lex credendi? Any way, Father Fudge isn't finished yet:

David Rutledge: What does it mean to call a child innocent?

Father Fudge: I believe that we are all born with certain needs and drives and tendencies. These babies are just purely innocent, because they're just responding to their own needs, for food and protection, and they scream when they want something and Mum or Dad try to respond to that.

David Rutledge: And that's something which - there's a certain strand in Christian teaching and tradition which sees that as evidence of, as you mentioned, original sin. Certainly St Augustine saw it as that; he looked at the child crying and saw that as evidence of sin. How much sense do you think it makes to talk about young children being sinful?

Father Fudge: I don't think it makes a great deal of sense at all. I don't believe that children have a sense of sin for many years ["Sense of sin"??? Who said anything about "Sense of Sin"??? The question was about young children being sinful, you twit. Don't you know the difference?] - and I don't even mean just when they start school, it's probably when they're in upper primary that they begin to get a sense of sin [there he goes again]. ...I don't think they have a sense of sin [and again] at all until quite older. We celebrate First Reconciliation with children when they're about seven years of age. And I personally think that's too young.

Holy moley. This bloke is from Sydney. Shows you what Cardinal George is up against. There is some serious, serious catechisation needed here. This priest displays what has gone wrong with Christian rhetoric of sin: we have exchanged the truth of sinful-NESS for something vague called a "SENSE of sin"--as if you remain perfectly innocent so long as you don't have a "sense" that the evil you are doing is sinful. Dear, O dear, O dear...

Monopolar Manicheanism?

I love it when people take the Mickey by proposing something the non-cognoscenti might just possibly take seriously. Andrew Raivars, from Fitzroy North, does it in a letter to the Editor in The Age last Thursday (19/07/07):

I've been battling for years to convert people to my religion, monopolar Manicheanism... Orthodox Manicheans believer that the world is the product of an eternal struggle between a good and an evil principle. Monopolar Manicheans hold that a single evil principle suffices and that the good in the world results from His incompetence.

He might be onto something...

My Reflection on the World Youth Day Song "Receive the Power"

Some of you will have noticed that, besides this blog and the "Year of Grace" retro-conversion-blog, I also have a blog specifically for liturgical music matters "Sing Lustily and With Good Courage". I have chosen to put my critique of the World Youth Day song "Receive the Power" there. You can read it by clicking here.

New Post on Year of Grace

It has been a while since I last posted an entry on my Year of Grace blog, so here is the next installment. Remember, if you are new to my "conversion retro-blog", that you have to start from the beginning and read backwards to get the full "diary" effect (see links to original posts in the left hand column). I am using the "Year of Grace" blog to post entries from the journal I kept during the year of my conversion from being a Lutheran Pastor to being a Catholic layperson--Easter 2000 to Easter 2001.

A Piece in the last edition of Kairos on my Turkey Trip

I had a short report on my Turkey trip with the Australian Intercultural Society in the last edition of Kairos. You can can read it here.

Brother John and Brother Kevin to address the Congregation

I must say that I find this rather bizarre: On Thursday 9th August, Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will take the stage together for two and a half hours to address a gathering of Christians in Canberra. But wait, there's more: the occasion will be live telecast to a church near you! We can't even get Catholics to agree among themselves on political issues here!

It rather assumes that there is something called "the Christian vote" here in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are Christians who vote (in fact, all Australians do--its compulsory here in Australia), but...together on the same issue?

Given that they are both self-confessed Christians, I wonder what "Brother John" and "Brother Kevin" will have to say about the obligations of being a disciple of Jesus? I wonder if they will join hands and pray together? I wonder if either will say "Vote for me because I'm the better Christian" or "Vote for me because my party is the more Christian"?

I wonder if this isn't really a very bad idea...

The fullness of universality? Eschatological Hope and Sincere Repentance in Catholic Ecumenism

There was a significant question posted to the end of my last blog, unfortunately from "Anon", so I can't thank them personally. The question was:

Is the RCC "defective" or less than catholic since it isn't in communion with the EO or Lutherans or Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.?

Chris Burgwald rightly pointed out that the CDF Clarification does note that

because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.

There is an important element of "eschatology" in Catholic ecclesiology. It relates to verses from Scripture such as John 10:16, where Jesus says:

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

, 1 Cor 15:28

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all

and Eph 2:21

In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

All these verses indicate that the Church of Christ will never be complete until the consumation of the world, that although the Church of Christ fully and uniquely subsists in the Catholic Church here and now, just as all the baptised

are God’s children now; [but] what we will be has not yet been revealed. (1 John 3:2)

The division among Christians is relevant here because all the baptised belong to the universal Church of Christ--and yet not all are in communion with that visible society in which this universal Church uniquely and fully subsists, namely the Catholic Church governed by the apostolic bishops in communion with the successor of Peter. This is a paradox which does not lessen the truth that fullness of the Church of Christ subsists fully and uniquely in the Catholic Church, but does give a clear indication why the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council prefered the term "subsists in" rather than the term "is"--because the Catholic Church as it exists at any particular time in history cannot be the fullness of the Catholic Church as it will be at the consumation of history.

The Commentary on the Document ends with a quotation from Pope Benedict's Encyclical Deus Caritas Est:

Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians.

Thus, just as those elements which are to be found in communities outside the Catholic Church that "belong by right to the one Church of Christ" (such as Baptism and the Word of God) can act as bonds that draw members of those communities into the closer embrace of the unity of the Catholic Churuch, by exactly the same token, members of the Catholic Church are compelled to seek to perfect that "real but imperfect" communion which already exists with our separated brothers and sisters. This is, of course, the whole basis of the involvement in the ecumenical movement.

But there is another aspect to the matter which is connected to the eschatological aspect. In a short but significant phrase in the Commentary, we are alerted to the factor of human sinfulness as a cause of the divisions among Christians. The Commentary explains that:

The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners “until it happily arrives at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

. There are two points here. The minor point is the fact that many non-Catholics often overlook. It isn't only members of non-Catholic communities who are in a situation of broken communion with the Church. Catholics themselves regularly and often find themselves out of communion with the Church because of mortal sin which enters into their hearts and lives. It isn't only the separated brethren and sistern who are not able to receive communion from Catholic altars, but also any Catholic who has committed mortal sin and who has not yet been reconciled to communion with the Church through the Sacrament of Penance. Thus the everyday reality of the Catholic Church herself is that she is "wounded" (if you like) by sin which breaks that fullness of communion all her members should have with her and with Christ in, with and through her.

The second point is that this sinfulness is a signficant factor to be taken into account in ecumenical relationships. Here an article by Cardinal Ratzinger (THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, VATICAN II, ‘LUMEN GENTIUM’)written in 2001 is very useful (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he simply gave a copy of this to Cardinal Levada and said: "Here, do vot you can mit zis"). I am going to quote at length what he says there in two paragraphs as it is particularly pertinent to this discussion.

The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject—-true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. This division is something totally different from the relativistic dialectic described above in which the division of Christians loses its painful aspect and in fact is not a rupture, but only the manifestation of multiple variations on a single theme, in which all the variations are in a certain way right and wrong. An intrinsic need to seek unity does not then exist, because in any event the one Church really is everywhere and nowhere. Thus Christianity would actually exist only in the dialectic correlation of various antitheses. Ecumenism consists [sic--bad translation: should read "would then consist"] in the fact that in some way all recognize one another, because all are supposed to be only fragments of Christian reality. Ecumenism would therefore be the resignation to a relativistic dialectic, because the Jesus of history belongs to the past and the truth in any case remains hidden.

The vision of the Council is quite different: the fact that in the Catholic Church is present "the subsistit" of the one subject the Church, is not at all the merit of Catholics, but is solely God's work, which he makes endure despite the continuous unworthiness of the human subjects. They cannot boast of anything, but can only admire the fidelity of God, with shame for their sins and at the same time great thanks. But the effect of their own sins can be seen: the whole world sees the spectacle of the divided and opposing Christian communities, reciprocally making their own claims to truth and thus clearly frustrating the prayer of Christ on the eve of his Passion. Whereas division as a historical reality can be perceived by each person, the subsistence of the one Church in the concrete form of the Catholic Church can be seen as such only through faith.

Thus ecumenism is inspired not only by eschatological hope, but also by sincere repentance for the sin of division--"for which", as the Council itself said, "men of both sides were [/are] to blame". You cannot understand Catholic ecumenism without understanding these two factors in Catholic ecclesiology.

What do we mean when we say "the Catholic Church"?

Listening to and reading people's responses to the CDF Clarification on the use of the word "Church", leads me to recognise that there are some inconsistencies in the way the term is used and understood.

For instance, at the most simplistic level, you hear people talking about the "local Catholic Church", meaning the local parish. In this sense, I used to be "the pastor of a church", meaning the local Lutheran parish.

(Following from this, "local Church" is often equated with the "local parish", or sometimes with something called the "national Church" (as opposed to foreign churches), when in fact it has a far stricter meaning in ecclesiology of the bishop and his flock gathered around the eucharistic celebration in a particular geographical locality.)

Then there are many people understand "The Catholic Church" to refer to a "denomination", like: The Lutheran Church, or the Anglican Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church. And sometime we Catholics use that way, but it is never defined as such or understood as such in our formal statements of belief. Following from this, there is "Catholic" as opposed to "Protestant". This often refers to a system of belief, rather than to an ecclesial reality.

Then there is "Catholic" as opposed to "Orthodox", in which case the East/West dichotomy is meant, and the "breathing with two lungs" analogy and an (incorrect) application of the term "sister church" comes into play.

All this becomes a problem when the Church releases a statement which says (in effect) that the Church of Christ on earth fully subsists uniquely in Catholic Church without clearly specifying the exact meaning of "Catholic Church" that is being employed.

For the record, when it is claimed that the Church of Christ on earth fully and uniquely subsists in the "Catholic Church", the claim is that one true Church of Christ subsists fully and uniquely in that universal communion of all true, local, particular Churches--of either the Eastern or Western traditions--which are governed by those bishops who not only derive their historical succession from the first apostles, but who are in communion with the successor of apostle Peter (that is, the bishop of Rome).

We are not claiming that the "Western Church" is the true Church over against the "Eastern Church". We are not claiming that "the Catholic Church" is the true Church over against "the Orthodox Church" or "the Protestant Church". We are certainly not claiming that the Catholic Church is the "true denomination" or that the local Catholic parish is the more Christian than any other gathering of Christians nearby.

We are simply making a statement about the what is called "communio ecclesiology", which, in the long run, is very similar to the statement of the World Council of Churches, namely that

Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with other churches

when "church" is taken to mean the local, particular Church, which is taken to mean the local Christian flock in eucharistic assembly around the apostolic bishop. Note that if we tried to say the same thing as the WCC said, but with the meaning "denomination = church", or "Western Church = church" or "Eastern Church = Church", the statement would be false. The Gospel of Christ knows no denominations, nor any division between East and West. There is simply "The One Church of Christ". Ie. The Una Sancta. The Catholica. That is what we mean when we say "The Catholic Church".

But the statement of the WCC is quite correct when it says "Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with other churches", for communion is essential for the nature of the Church and even for the true "churchness" of the local, particular Church. One of the realities of the apostolic episcopate is that a bishop cannot make himself--he has to be made by other bishops. This in turn implies that the bishop must--as a matter of his essential nature--be in communion and receive communion from his brother bishops. It is in the communion of the bishops with one another that the universal communion of the Church is made visible. Therefore a local, particular church can be truly "church", in that it has bishop, people and eucharist, but if it fails to live in communion with the other local, particular churches, then it must be said to be "wounded" or "defective" in this essential matter.

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and Prayers for the Jews: Some notes of clarification

(Warning--long post!)

A. The Concerns

1. The Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007, establishes that the single Roman liturgical rite exists in two forms: the "extraordinary form" (following the Missal of Blessed John XXIII issued in 1962) and the "ordinary form" following the Missal of Paul VI (issued by John Paul II in 2002).

2. It is an ancient custom of the Church to pray for the Jewish people at the celebration of the Lord's Passion on Good Friday.

In the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, this prayer reads:

Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et in sui fœderis fidelitate proficere.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahæ eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiæ tuæ preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his Name and in faithfulness to His covenant.
Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The extraordinary form contains the following prayer from the liturgy for the celebration of the Lord's Passion on Good Friday:

Oremus et pro Judæis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Oremus. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Judæos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcæcatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuæ luce, quæ Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.
Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Jesus Christ, your son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen

This prayer draws heavily on imagery from St Paul's 2nd letter to the Corinthians, chapters 3 and 4. The invocation for God to "take the veil from their hearts" is from 2 Cor 3:15, while later images of "blindness" and "light" are drawn from 2 Cor 4:3-6.

3. In 1570 Missal of St Pius V, the prayer for the Jews was introduced with the words "Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis”. On the first Good Friday after his election to the papacy in 1959, Pope John XXIII eliminated the adjective “perfidis” from the prayer. The prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the extraordinary form (following the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII) does not contain the word "perfidis".

4. Some Jewish groups have reacted to reports about the Motu Proprio with disquiet. Two examples are as follows:

We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday liturgy, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted. This is a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time." (Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League)

The Wiesenthal Center and other Jewish groups expressed concern that a 1962 Good Friday Latin Mass, predating Vatican II, includes prayers “even” for the Jews who live with a “veil of blindness,” and for their conversion, as well as one for the “heathens,” i.e. Muslims. “These words, taken alone could be seen as stepping back from the current Good Friday Mass which underscores the eternity “of the promise to Abraham and his posterity,” he concluded. (Press release from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre)

5. Some Catholics involved in dialogue and relationships with Jews may share these concerns. Although the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII was the form of the rite used exclusively until 1970, it was not altered to take into account the 1965 decree of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate which addressed the relationship of the Church to the Jewish people. Furthermore, the Catholic-Jewish dialogue has progressed considerably since 1962 and that the extraordinary form does not take this into account. As a result of this progress in dialogue and understanding, some Catholic theologians have come to the conclusion that it is "no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church" to pray for the conversion of the Jewish people (cf. Reflections on Covenant and Mission. Nb. Note the significant critique of this point of view by Cardinal Avery Dulles).

B. Some Factors Affecting The Assessment Of The Concerns

1. This is the only prayer regarding the Jewish people in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. It occurs only in this one celebration which may be used only once a year on Good Friday. This is relevant for two reasons:

a) The Motu Proprio explicitly restricts the use of the extraordinary form during the Sacred Triduum (of which the Good Friday liturgy forms a part) to those parishes where there exists a group who are "stable" in their adherance to it.
b) The celebration of the Lord's Passion may be conducted only once on Good Friday, which does not allow both forms to be used in the same place. Unless a particular parish is dedicated to the sole use of the extraordinary form (in Australia there are about six such parishes), this will mean that the choice will always be in favour of the ordinary form.

2. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum does not introduce anything new to the Church. The form of the mass now known as the "extraordinary form" (which includes the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy) has been in continuous use even since 1970. Pope Benedict writes in his letter to the Bishops that "this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." It is now almost twenty years since Pope John Paul II provided explicit guidelines for its use in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988).

3. Pope Benedict XVI emphasised that there are not two different Latin rites, but one rite in two forms. In his letter to the Bishops, he also emphasises that

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

This would appear to exclude a 'hermeneutic of rupture' and to affirm a 'hermeneutic of continuity' whereby the faith of the Church is to be seen reflected in both forms of the Latin rite. One cannot hold the theology of one rite against the theology of the other. Apparent 'contradictions' between the lex orandi (law of prayer) and lex credendi (law of belief) will require hermeneutical reflection.

4. In his letter to the Bishops, the Holy Father invites Bishops to send in accounts of their experience over the next three years, saying that "If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought." Thus there are avenues for addressing the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews if it is found to be causing "serious difficulties" for Catholic-Jewish relationships.

5. Until now, the "pre-Vatican II" form of the Latin rite has remained static in the form of the 1962 Missal. However, the Motu Proprio and its accompanying letter to Bishops explicity indicate that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching" and that consequently changes may be made to the extraordinary form in the future. At this point only very modest changes are indicated (eg. " new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.") However, the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission has been asked to study the "practical possibilities in this regard", and it is not inconceivable that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews may be also modified if it is found to be one of the "serious difficulties" reported to the Holy See. This would not have been possible without the current Motu Proprio.

6. The doctrine of the Church's relationship with the Jewish people—including questions about the salvific effect of the Mosaic Covenant, the evangelisation of Jews, and prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people—is still undergoing a process of development and clarification. After two thousand years we are facing these questions in a new situation. The experience of the Shoah has awakened the Church to the deplorable history of anti-semitism in relation to which it has not been innocent. It will take much time, effort, prayer and charity for the parameters of our new relationship to be fully revealed. The language of prayer in both Church and Synagogue will be an important and significant part of of this understanding.

I never stopped to think...

when I chose the title of my blog, that it would cause difficulties for some-people's internet filters because of the central word. I just had a go at the latest toy for bloggers--having my site "rated" by this website. It has turned out to be a PG-13. I was told that "This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words: cum (3x) hell (2x) dangerous (1x)." Could be worse. Louise's site got "No-one under 17"--but then she uses really "naughty words" all the time as she addresses really serious stuff.

Leunig: Domestic Prophet

Melburnians are proud of their local prophet, cartoonist Michael Leunig. Of course, as all good scholars of revelation know, a prophet is not someone who tells the future so much as someone who is able to tell-forth the truth. In that respect, Leunig is often truly prophetic. Never more so than in this cartoon which appeared in Saturday's edition of The Age (in the A2 section), highlighting the "Seven Wonders" of the domestic world. My wife and I simply nodded sagely as we recognised the deep truth in these simple lines. Then we cut it out and put it on the fridge--the sacred repository of all true prophecies...

(Click on the image for the full size)

Christianity: Judaism MkIIB?

Any discussion on the relationship between Christians and Jews or Judaism (which are not exactly the same thing) involves complex theological, historical and cultural issues. Even thinking about beginning to sketch out some thoughts in this area causes me to tremble... But here goes.

Anecdote One: I was talking to my children about my many good friendships with Jewish people. My daughter said: I've got some Jewish friends. Really? I replied (there are hardly any Jews in our part of the city). Yeah, Jesus, and Mary, and Joseph, and Peter, and John... Great kid, my daughter.

The upshot of which is that we all know Christianity had its beginnings among the Jewish people. But perhaps many Christains are insufficiently aware of the fact that Christianity only makes sense in the context of its Jewish roots.

Another anecdote. A Rabbi friend likes to distinguish between Judaism Mk I (Biblical or Temple Judaism) and Judaism Mk II (Rabbinical or Synagogue Judaism). When he says this, I like to correct him and say that Rabbinical Judaism is actually Judaism Mk IIA -- Judaism Mk IIB is Christianity.

This is, I think, one of the most important points that can be made about the relationship between modern day Jews and Christians: Christianity is a form of Judaism. I would argue that it is a form of Judaism which is just as valid (in terms of historical continuity) as the religion which commonly goes by that name.

In making this claim, we need to recognise three important historical events and the effects they had upon the Jewish community and religion.

The first event was the Babylonian Exile (587-539 BC). This was the beginning of the Jewish diaspora and the establishment of synagogues as an alternative focus for Jewish religious practice over against the temple (which had been destroyed by the Babylonians). The temple was eventually rebuilt, but not until the synagogues had more than a century to establish themselves. At the time of Jesus and St Paul (see the Gospels and Acts) we see both systems--temple and synagogue--existing side by side, each with their own parties--priestly saducees and rabbinical pharisees. Of course, as studies by folk such as N.T. Wright are now conclusively showing, there were a host of different "Judaisms" in the late 1st Century BC/early 1st Century AD. But significantly for both forms of Judaism MkII, the synagogues were well established by this time not only throughout Palestine, but all through the Roman Empire and beyond.

This brings us to the second event: The execution of Jesus of Nazareth by Pontius Pilate (c. 30 AD). For the history of the years following this event, I refer you to the scholars--people like Martin Hengel and N.T. Wright will do for a start. (I find this stuff spiritually fascinating as well as intellectually stimulating--it simultaneously challenges and confirms my faith). The one thing we cannot deny is that the Christian Church started off as a 100% Jewish movement. Among these early Christians, as the Book of Acts and Martin Hengel's studies confirm, were "Greeks", but these were Greek-speaking Jews, not Gentiles. There is ample evidence to show that the new Christians (who were first called that in Antioch outside of Palestine, not in Jerusalem) continued to regard themselves as Jews. Most significantly they continued to worship in the temple, while attracting many of its adherants from the pharisees and synagogues. Judaism Mk IIB had begun.

It is important for our modern discussion to take good note of the fact that the very earliest doctrinal crisis to face the infant Church was not whether the gospel should be preached to Jews (ie. whether Christians should seek to convert Jews), but rather whether the gospel should be preached to Gentiles--and to what extent and by what method Gentiles could become members of what was undeniably a Jewish Christian community.

The matter was, of course, resolved in favour of allowing Gentiles to convert to Christianity, imposing only very minimalist "Jewish" requirements ("Council of Jerusalem"--Acts 15, c. 50AD). But that it took about 20 years for this decision to be decisively taken shows that for a very long time (and a good time thereafter as Paul's letters show) this remained an issue. Paul's activities greatly increased the percentage of non-Jewish members in the Christian Church, but even he always followed the mission-strategy of starting at the local synagogue first. Afterall, they were the ones for home the message was originally intended, and the ones who would have made most sense of the decidedly Jewish categories in which the Gospel was proclaimed.

At this point, there were at least three varieties of Judaism widely practiced: Mk I (Temple cult), Mk IIA (Synagogue), and Mk IIB (Christianity). But the real tipping point came with the third important historical event--an event that finally spelled the end of Judaism Mk I and marked the break between Mk IIA and Mk IIB: the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

We are today perhaps not quite as aware of the significance of this event for Christians as we should be. Our interpretation of Christ's death as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of the world may well have its crystalisation (if not its origin) in this event. There is a very good case to be made that the Letter to the Hebrews dates from soon after the destruction of the Temple, and its entire argument that Christ has replaced both the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices seems to answer the question: How are we, as Christian Jews, to understand this catastrophe?

Synagogue/Rabbinical Judaism--which had long had its tensions with the centralised cult at the Temple--also asked itself "What does this mean for us?". In effect, it meant that their day had come. The scattered Jewish populace was welcomed by the synagogue communities throughout the empire, and a new understanding of religious service to God--studying and living according to the Torah--took the place of the reliance on the preistly/sacrificial system.

There is an interesting historical point here that fascinates me. The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about Gamaliel:

Gamaliel, as it appears, did most toward establish-. ing the honor in which the house of Hillel was held, and which secured to it a preeminent position within Palestinian Judaism soon after the destruction of the- Temple. ...That Gamaliel ever taught in public is known, curiously enough, only from the Acts of the Apostles, where (xxii. 3) the apostle Paul prides himself on having sat at the feet of Gamaliel.

Thus Gamaliel forms a clear connecting point between both MkIIA and MkIIB Judaism.

The relationship between Synagogue Judaism and Christianity from this point until the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire is one that need to study more. However, it is quite clear that there was a good deal of interaction between the two post-biblical Jewish movements and communities for quite some centuries. For instance, even the formation of the Jewish canon--and the decision to use only the Hebrew books excluding the "Greek" books previously included in the Septuagint--at the Council of Jamnia (c. 90 AD) was probably influenced by a need to distinguish the Synagogue Jews from the rapidly growing Christian movement which used the Greek version.

But population studies are also interesting. I don't have the figures in front of me (Joshua has alluded to them in his comments on the extraordinary form of the Roman mass), but sociological historians have asked the question "What happened to the Jews of the Roman Empire?". For it seems that whereas in the early 1st Century AD there were X% of Jews among the population of the Empire, by the establishment of Christianity by Constantine in the 4th Century there were only a fraction of X%. Where did the others go? Answer (acc. to these sociologists): they became Christian. Other sociological historians debate about the impact that the movement had right at the very beginning in Jerusalem. If the Acts of the Apostles is accurate in saying that 3000 converts were made on the first day, and if this group "continued to grow" as was claimed--there could have been as many as 50% of the population of Jerusalem affected by this movement in some way.

Anyway, these are all questions for another time. I have to go now to the inaugural Australian meeting of the "Scriptural Reasoning" movement--a movement started in the US for Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars to come together and study their texts together. In the mean time, lets ponder on our Jewish heritage and identity and what it means for our relationship with those who are racially Jewish today. I have looked here only at some historical issues. There are theological issues I would like to address. And sociological ones too--for one of the strange (but not unexpected) things about modern Jews is that there are many who are not religious in any sense at all but still have a strong identity with Judaism. These "secular" Jews are a whole new sort of Judaism today--perhaps Judaism Mk III?

#3 Concrete Act for the Unity of the Church: The CDF Clarification of the Doctrine on the Church

"Now with the mind of Christ set us on fire,
that unity may be our great desire..."
(John Raphael Peacey)

I was as surprised as the next bloke to read in the morning edition of The Age last Thursday that the Holy See had issued yet another "clarification" of the Church's doctrine on the Church. I say "yet another", even though it has been seven years since the matter was spelled out fairly clearly in Dominus Iesus (a document which smoothed--or rather "oiled"--my path into the Catholic Church)--fairly recently by Vatican standards. And we all remember what a hullabaloo went up then about the Catholic Church's difficulty in recognising the ecclesial reality and status of some communities of our separated Brethren and Sistern.

But it seems like even DI didn't put it bluntly enough, so the Prefect of the Holy Inquisition (as we Crunchy Trads like to call it), the supposedly "non-radically-conservative" Cardinal William Levada, has seen fit to issue a simple catechism in question and answer form that even the most spongy/flakey ecumenist should be able to comprehend.

Here is a brief summary of (what is officially known as) RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH:

1. Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Answer: No. What the Catholic Church taught before the Council regarding the Church is exactly the same as what it taught afterward. If you read it in any other way, you've got it wrong. (Go and learn what "hermeneutic of continuity" means; cf. Papa Benny's speech to the Curia in Dec 2005).

2. What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Answer: There is only one Church of Christ, and the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome and governed by him is it. The Church of Christ "subsists in" AND ONLY IN the Catholic Church.

3. Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

Answer: Because we didn't want to suggest that there wasn't stuff that belongs to the one Church of Christ (like baptism and the word of God) that can be found outside the Catholic Church, or that there are not churches which are real particular churches even thought they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

4. Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Answer: Because they have real bishops, and therefore real priests and therefore real eucharists and therefore are real particular churches. But there is a problem in that they lack one essential factor necessary to each true particular church: ie. communion with the primatial see of Rome (see what the Pope said to the Catholics in China on this).

5. Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Answer: For exactly the same reason that we call Orthodox Churches real particular churches. They have the bishops, priests, eucharist, etc. Protestants don't.

I don't think that this little summary is putting it too bluntly. The full version perhaps gives a little more explanation, but there it is. It is not a polite document. I wonder whether the next thing that the CDF doesn't come out with is a statement on exactly what the Catholic Church judges to be the reality (or otherwise) of the Eucharists in non-catholic Churches. That's something that dialogue groups the world over have been politely tip-toeing around for four decades now, but have yet to come out and say as clearly as the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Church has been spelled out in this document.

But why issue such a document at all? Does the Vatican simply want to throw a wet blanket on the already smouldering fires of the ecumenical movement?

Certainly that is how some commentators have seen it. The head of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches has called it "an exclusivist claim that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the one church of Jesus Christ" which "goes against the spirit of our Christian calling toward oneness in Christ" (Rev. Setri Nyomi).

Thomas Wipf, president of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe, sadi that the original characteristics of the church of Christ are preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments:

That--and no more--is need to be able to be seen as an authentic expression of the one church of Christ. The Gospel, and not apostolic succession in the sacrament of ordination, constitutes the church. We recognise the Roman Catholic Church as a church. It is and remains regrettable that this is not made possible the other way around.

I agree that it is regrettable. I also agree that that the church is constituted by the Gospel and the Sacraments--but precisely one of our disagreements is on whether the sacrament of Holy Orders is one of those indispensible constituting sacraments...

I do sympathise with our protestant brethren and sistern who feel this way. After all, Catholics are used to being regarded as non- or sub-Christian by protestants. But we are not calling the Christianity of our separated brothers and sisters into question--only the striclty theological ecclesial reality of their communities.

So the World Council of Churches, in its reaction, has it much better when they quote from their recent document "Called to be one Church":

Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with other churches.

That statement is spot on, so long as "church" is not used to mean "denomination" or "parish", but "particular church"--the legitimate bishop in each place with his people gathered around the eucharist. The Catholic Church would especially like to emphasise the final line of that quotation. The WCC statement went on to recognise the need for honesty in ecumenical dialogue--and that seems to be the point which most reasonable commentators on this clarification recognise as valuable.

A case in point is the comment of the Russian Orthodox prelate, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad:

It is an honest statement. It is much better than the so-called 'church diplomacy'. It shows how close, or, on the contrary, how divided we are.

My personal favourite reaction is from the aforementioned article in The Age. Anglican bishop Robert Forsyth of Sydney is reported as saying:

It means the Pope is a Catholic, actually. Of course, they would think that — we think they're a bit dodgy, too, but we've come a long way from saying the Pope is the antichrist. In Sydney, we get on well (with the Catholics) because we both accept there are irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't stop us loving each other.

The Clarification carries this note on the end of it:

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

So is this the one act of the Holy Father in the last week or two that goes against the grain of seeking unity? Using a hermeneutic of continuity, I beg to disagree. It is by such honest and clear statements of belief that true ecumenical progress is enabled. Muddying the waters with what Metropolitan Kirill calls "church diplomacy" only hinders the true progress of ecumenical rapproachment.

#2 Concrete Act for the Unity of the Church: Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum

"Now with the mind of Christ set us on fire,
that unity may be our great desire..."
(John Raphael Peacey)

Lots has been said and written about the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum (suitably in Latin only on the Vatican website, but see this English Translation) to this point. I am quite happy with it--as if that matters in the scheme of things--and there is nothing about the provisions of the MP itself which concern me--which perhaps matters even less.

What I really like is the Explanatory Letter which Pope Benedict personally wrote to go along with it. Papa Benny wears his heart on his shirt-sleeve in this letter. You know that what you are hearing is absolutely what the Pope himself has thought on the matter for quite some time. Almost as if he were saying (to paraphrase Trollope's Mrs Proudie) "Joseph Ratzinger thinks and I agree"...

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Moreover, the Holy Father shows great awareness of the forces that have been mustered against this move to derestrict the use of the Roman rite according to the 1962 Missal. I am sure that he has had no shortage of people over the last six months more than willing to tell him exactly what was wrong with the idea. (The opposition this papal brainwave met can really only be compared to the opposition Blessed John XXIII himself experienced from the curia when he suggested that it might be a good idea to hold an ecumenical council...) But he will not let this move be brushed aside as simply trying to please some aging die-hards who have never accepted the changes that followed the council forty years ago. He is aware that

in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.

Of course, he has the SSPX in view. Of the Church's relationship with them he quotes St Paul who said:

"Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

On the theme of unity, it is hardly surprising that the Bishop of Rome should emphasise that, despite this new derestriction of an older form of the Roman rite,

it is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

There is one Roman rite for the one Roman Church. I think this means that in many ways the current situation--in which we have an "ordinary form" of the rite (formerly known as the "novus ordo") and an "extraordinary form" (formerly known as the "Tridentine")--is itself transitional. As Peregrinus has pointed out in the comments section of the blog below on the Good Friday prayers, is it inconceivable that there will not be further editions of the "extraordinary form", especially as the Motu Proprio and accompanying letter have indicated that there will be modifications (eg. "new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal" [Letter], vernacular lectionaries may be used [Art 6]). I find it most intriguing that the Holy Father should believe that

the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching.

To me this undeniably indicates that a future organic growing together is envisaged. What this might entail in the long run, however, is anyone's guess. It is no mystery, however, what outcome the Holy Father would desire. The result of this "mutual enrichment" would be that

The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

You see again that, when it comes to our Holy Father, unity IS his "great desire"--especially at the altar of God.

#1 Concrete Act for the Unity of the Church: The Chinese Letter

"Now with the mind of Christ set us on fire,
that unity may be our great desire..."
(John Raphael Peacey)

The Letter of the Holy Father to the Catholic Church in the People's Republic of China is a remarkable document, which some commentators have seen as marking a new stage in the history of the Church in that country.

For some time, I have wondered whether we could see the situation in China in terms of "ecumenism". After all, the problem did appear to be one of disunity between the Catholic Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome and a rival episcopal church organisation which was not in communion.

But in his letter, the Holy Father chose to consider the divisions among Chinese Catholics as divisions WITHIN the one Catholic Church in China, not as divisions between a true and a rival Catholic Church.

Secondly, although most modern ecumenical divisions are based on doctrinal differences, historically and often still today, politics has played a large part in originating and perpetuating the divisions. So also in China, where the Patriotic Association--for political purposes--teaches a doctrinal error by asserting that the Chinese Church can be independant of the Church of Rome and yet remain Catholic.

In this the Chinese situation bears superficial resemblence at least to the situation in England under Henry VIII. Then, an otherwise orthodox Catholic King desired separation from Rome for political reasons, but found many "protestants" who were more than willing to encourage the King for their own doctrinal reasons.

In his letter, the Holy Father could have taken the same stand that his predecessors took four and half centuries ago in relation to the English situation. He could have called for a situation of active resistance, of confrontation, of denunciation. It could have been an "us and them" approach that hardened the lines separating the "official" and "underground" communities.

Instead, we can see what a difference four and a half centuries of experience of division among Christians has made. The pope recognises the many different real-life situations and difficulties which the Catholic Church in China is suffering, and implores each bishop, priest and lay person to reach out in love and charity toward those "on the other side of the barbed-wire fence". We have also learnt something about Church-State relations, and know that it is possible to enter into "dialogue" with even the most anti-Christian civil authority, as long as that authority is as willing to engage in the dialogue as the Church is.

At the same time, Pope Benedict does not give an inch on the fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith, chief among which is the following (and read this carefully, because it pops up again in the recent "Clarification" from the CDF on the Doctrine of the Church):

The ministry of the Successor of Peter belongs to the essence of every particular Church "from within" [19]. Moreover, the communion of all the particular Churches in the one Catholic Church, and hence the ordered hierarchical communion of all the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, with the Successor of Peter, are a guarantee of the unity of the faith and life of all Catholics. It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.

Without denying this essential requirement, Pope Benedict, in this letter, has done what he said the Church is obligated to do:

to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.

As Father Jeroom Heyndrickx puts it well in a summary article:

The key words are: reconciliation, unity and dialogue. Nowhere in this letter does the pope call for confrontation. Marked by reconciliation and unity inside the Church and dialogue with civil authorities on the basis of equality and mutual respect, it initiates a new phase in Chinese Catholic Church history.

Gentlemen (and Ladies), start your engines...

Back from holidays, and I hardly know where to begin. Three amazing documents released from the Holy See in the last fortnight, two long looked for (the China Letter and the Motu Proprio) and one totally unexpected (the CDF Clarification "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church")--but all having some bearing on matters of Church Unity.

Church Unity (otherwise known as "ecumenism") is, as you know well, both a professional and a personal passion for me.

I would like to address each of these three documents in separate blogs under the rubric of "Church Unity"--asking the quesiton: what is the ecumenical significance of this document?

In doing so, I am wanting to pick up on a short paragraph from the Holy Father's explanatory letter accompanying the Motu Proprio:

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.

This is the pope who prayed at the inauguration of his pontificate:

Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!

This is the pope who in his first message declared:

Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress.

Each of these three documents--the Letter to Chinese Catholics, the Motu Proprio on the Missal of John XXIII and the Clarification on the Doctrine on the Church--in their own way form such concrete actions to which the Pope alluded at the beginning of his pontificate.

Off the air for a week

I will be "off air" for about a week. I am taking time off from work and from blogging (no, the two are not the same!) to spend time with my family. That means I will miss all the excitement of the Motu Proprio--but I am sure that won't stop you from reading the many good blogs that I have linked to in my side bar on the issue.

In a way it is a bit of a shame. The readership of the blog is at an all time high (about 120 a day--three times what it was six months ago) and Sentire Cum Ecclesia is about to get its 20,000th visit in the next few days. So.. make sure y'all come back in a week, y'hear?

A Jewish Friend Enquires about Anti-Semitism in the Latin Mass

I found an enquiry on my email when I arrived in the office this morning from an Orthodox Jewish friend about this news report:

U.K. Catholic Clergy Criticizes Pope's Plans to Resurrect Mass with Anti-Semitic References
The Independent is reporting a rift between the United Kingdom’s senior Catholic clergy and the Vatican over the resurrection of an old Latin mass replete with anti-Semitic references. The plan originates with Pope Benedict XIV himself. At issue is the 16th-century Tridentine Mass - which includes material such as references to "perfidious" Jews; a statement that Jews live in "darkness" and "blindness"; and a prayer that "the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ." According to The Independent, clergy fear reverting to the old mass – which was discontinued in 1969 – will drive a wedge into relations between the Church and Jews and Muslims. The report cited an expert who said the problem goes beyond the actual liturgy, but that proponents of the old Mass "tend to oppose the laity's increased role in parish life... collaboration with other Christians and its dialogue with Jews and Muslims."

Here is my reply:

There will be an announcement some time this weekend, I think, on this matter.

The concern should be minimal. The press has not understood (or attempted to understand) what is happening, and have (for their usual purposes) tried to create controversy were there should be none.

There is not a "return" to the "old mass" (strictly speaking the 1962 missal) but rather a legalisation of its use in the place of the current ban. For comparison, consider if tomorrow a (hypothetical!) world-wide Jewish authority declared the Orthodox prayer book illegal and imposed a Progressive prayer book. Unhappiness would no doubt ensue in some quarters! For Catholics, those who desire the old mass are a very small minority, but they have rightly seen it as an injustice that this ancient rite has simply been banned. Benedict XVI agrees.

The occasions on which this rite would be used will be rare (although not quite as rare as currently--there is one parish in Melbourne currrently licenced to use the old rite), and the rite would always be done in Latin.

The single prayer referred to in this press story as "anti-semitic" would in fact be even rarer, and quite likely never used at all (depending on the details of the expected announcement). It comes from the lengthy Good Friday liturgy. Because Good Friday is a major Catholic feast, and the liturgy on Good Friday must be done at a set time (3pm in the afternoon), it is inconceivable that any parish (except the aforementioned one which currently exists and which uses only the old rite) would schedule the old-rite, latin prayers instead of the usual, popular demand, new rite English prayers.

To say that those who love and appreciate the old rite neccesarily are opposed to interrelgious dialogue is like saying that Orthodox Jews are necessarily opposed to dialogue. Some may well be, but it is ridiculous to say that it is a rule. I am an example of one who loves the old rite and promotes dialogue, just as you are Orthodox and also promote dialogue. The problem is not the rite--but the thinking of those who use the various rites.

So I do not think there is any reason for concern in this quarter.

Important footnote: After posting this blog, I read something on Fr Z.'s blog which suggests that in fact the offending prayers were removed from the 1962 missal in any case. Can anyone advise me on this?