Earth Hurrah Smearth Hurrah

More on the so-called "Earth Hour". The Age and Sydney Morning Herald (sponsors of Earth Hour) are patting themselves on the back for a "job well done". Pity that Mediawatch doesn't get onto them, or at least someone report on this non-event in an objective way.

In a front-page article in today's edition of The Age, the following claim was made:

According to estimates by AGL Energy, the energy saved slashed almost 30 tonnes of carbon emissions — equal to taking 61,320 cars off the road for the hour.

However, the exact reduction in emissions is still unknown.

No. It is known. The exact reduction in emissions was ZERO. Because, as pointed out before, it did not reduce the amount of electricity GENERATED in that hour. Using electricity does not create emissions (well, negligible any way). Generating it does. And the generators kept on going regardless of how many people turned the lights off.

In fact, far from energy being SAVED, energy was actually WASTED during this hour. Dear, O dear, O dear...

Earth Hour Smearth Hour

Did your household do "Earth Hour"? Ours did. But not after your correspondent was chastised for being cynical by pointing out that turning of the lights for one hour would do nothing at all to the level of Greenhouse gas emissions generated at the powerplants, since it takes at least a day to change the generating level of these machines, and any unused electricity on the grid would simply be "dumped".

It was nice to get my antique oil lamps out and to spend a quite hour reading in their gentle glow instead of doing the dishes, the ironing, the vacuum cleaning, the clothes washing and the one hundred and one other little jobs that had to be done about the house. I commented to my wife about the way artificial lighting has actually extended our working life by about six hours a day...

It was, at least, one way of impressing upon the kids the consequences of leaving lights on all over the house although--as this cynic also pointed out to them--they would do much more to save the world (and our electricity bill) if they simply put out the lights in the room when they left it.

Then again, we probably produced even more greenhouse gases by using our lamps and candles.

Ah, the trials of being a cynic.

Two new posts on Year of Grace

For those following my "conversion blog" at Year of Grace, I have added two new posts.

Bishoy on the Ordination of Women

Dr William Tighe asked in the combox to the last post:

Is this the same Bishop Bishoy that delivered that wonderful, and wonderfully explicit, denunciation of women's "ordination" (WO) and the "blessing" of homosexual "partnerships" to the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia a few years ago?

Answer: Yes.

The Metropolitan has his own website here and the article to which you refer is here.

I especially like the way Bishoy explains the use of Scripture and Tradition in ascertaining the Truth on this issue (and on any other):

The Holy Bible is the chief source of reference in our research. Within it we can locate the expression of Divine thought on this issue. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

In searching for the truth, we could never depend upon our own wisdom. We must refer to the scriptures, remembering the Lord’s words in the Book of Proverbs, “My son, do not forget my law, [etc.]" (Prov. 3:1,5,7,13,17,18).

It is not our right to form teachings, legislations or orders in the church, that do not conform to the Holy Bible. Thus Saint Paul the Apostle recommended the Thessalonians saying, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:15).

Then he emphasizes the same concept and exhorted them saying, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thes. 3:6).

(Which goes a long way toward explaining Coptic history in relation to the rest of the Church over the last 1500 years...)

The second source of reference for our research is the ecclesiastic tradition. Especially the traditions of the early church, considering that it is received directly from its proper sources, (i.e. Jesus Christ and His disciples).

I like the language of Church doctrine "conforming with" the scriptures and using the Scriptures as our "chief source of reference", while also acknowledging that there is a "second source of reference", namely, "ecclesiastic tradition" which is received "directly from its proper sources", namely, "Jesus Christ and his disciples". Sums up the Catholic and Orthodox approach to Scripture and Tradition as well. I would suggest it is precisely failure to read the Holy Scriptures (the "chief reference") in the light of this "second source of reference" that has enabled so many protestant communions to wander up (and away from) the garden path on this and many other issues.

Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy explains how Church Unity got Lost in Translation at Chalcedon

Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy (pictured above) has been visiting Melbourne. Not the most convenient time for Westerners, in the middle of our Holy Week and Easter, but of course, they are on a different calendar.

Having arranged baby-sitting, I was able to get to his public lecture tonight at Trinity College (arranged by a loyal Sentire Cum Ecclesia reader, Selina - OK, class, say 'hullo' to Selina: 'Hullo Selina!' - who is working in an admin role at Trinity), which was entitled: "The Christological Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon: An Orthodox Perspective & recent positive developments". Yes, I know, a daunting title, but your intrepid correspondent does not cringe in fear before such challenges (after all, the opening lecture at Luther Seminary in 1983--the very first theological lecture I ever heard--was entitled "St Athanasius and the Trinitarian Controversy"...)

He gave a non-Chalcedonian view of the events surrounding the Council of Chalcedon and its outcomes, and also pointed to the way in which the controversies are being overcome today, 1500 years later--largely through avoiding terminology in which the real meaning gets lost in translation.

The terminolgy is indeed difficult, and reminds me of the mess I got myself into when we were discussing on these pages whether Christ was a "human person".

Usually, we Chalcedonians say that when the "Word became flesh", the two natures, divine and human, were united in "one person"--or "one hypostasis" (there are problems here when that greek word is transferred literally into Latin, because you end up with two natures in "one substance"). The Copts, from what I could gather, emphasise that in Christ the two natures are united so as to become "one nature" (mia physis)--although Metropolitan Bishoy strongly asserted (in St Cyril's terminology) that in this union the two natures continue to exist distinctly. He even used the Chalcedonian phrase "without separation, without division, without change, and without confusion", although, again in St Cyril's words, "it is not possible to distinguish between the natures except in thought alone". I'm not personally comfortalbe with that last phrase. To a modern ear, it seems to suggest that it isn't objectively so, it is just so in our thinking. But that is surely not what either St Cyril or Metropolitan Bishoy mean.

And so we can't call these guys "Mono-physites". As the Metropolitan writes, ‘monophysite’ comes from ‘moni physis’ which means 'only nature', whereas the Copts teach 'one nature', that is ‘mia physis’, without denying the two natures.

Still, I find this difficult. To use the Trinitarian analogy, we cannot say that the three Persons are united in One Divine Person, or that three Gods are united in One God. It is Three Persons in One God. So with Jesus, it isn't two persons in one person, or two natures in one nature. It is two natures in one person. It just seems to run better using that terminology.

Nevertheless, if you avoid all the "lost in translation" stuff, you can see that we are really talking about the same thing. So the Catholic-Coptic dialogue was wise to drop all allusions to the Greek terminology and simply confess together the following statement:

“We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the incarnate-Logos is perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity. He made his Humanity One with his Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Change, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from his Humanity even for a moment or a twinkling of an eye.

At the same time, we Anathematize [the teachings of] both Nestorius and Eutyches and their Doctrines.”

"Ideas that Changed the World"? Disappointing Anti-Catholicism from Australian Evangelical group "Christians in the Media"

My wife alerted me to this website, "Ideas that changed the world". She has been a teacher in her parish of the earlier course produced by the same people "Introducing God".

Unfortunately, the producers of this material, otherwise quite a respectable mob, have chosen to use the approach of World Youth Day as a time to step up with some revived push to proselytise Catholics (I begin to know how the Jews must feel...!).

The website says:

With the Roman Catholic church waking up for World Youth Day in July 2008 and the Pope stating that Protestant churches are not valid churches we need to educate our people on the great truths of the reformation all over again.

To help we have produced a teaching series on the four great alones of the Protestant Reformation: Grace, Faith, Bible and Christ.

And gives this little blurb at the top of the page:

"Today a Catholic friend and I watched Grace Alone. With tears of joy she talked about how the burden of guilt she carried had been lifted, as God had done it all for her, and she gave her life to the Lord. Your DVD presents the Truth clearly, strongly and yet very lovingly. What an awesome tool to have!" -Ellen

And here's some excerpts from a page long "testimony" on the same page:

Dominic Steele writes...

...I had been Christened and I participated in Confession, Communion and Confirmation in the Catholic Church, I attended a Catholic School for eight years and served as an altar boy at mass for five years. Now I was on the church council. However, in the months that followed I became increasingly disillusioned with [my parish] priest and church.

...Either I’d rejected church or church had rejected me. But I still knew that God existed and somehow things needed to be fixed with God. When my friend Russell Powell invited me to church and I eventually nervously accepted his invitation to his Protestant church I was astonished at the differences.

There wasn’t the same ceremony. But there was an authenticity that I hadn’t seen before. Instead of walking straight out to the car park after receiving Communion people stayed for hours talking about the things they had been taught from the Bible.

Having been in church for years and then out of church for a while, I (shockingly) would say I became a Christian (began a personal relationship with God through Jesus) on 26 January 1986. After this I spent a long time working out how my new faith differed from the faith of my childhood.

Growing up I wouldn’t have said that I was saved by God’s grace alone. I trusted in my own works to make me right with God rather than having faith alone in what Christ alone had done. And my authority came from the church institution rather than from the Bible alone. I have come to see that these differences are enormously significant.

In these talks and studies we introduce you to people who grew up Catholic and see how they have wrestled with the four major ideas of the 16th century Protestant Reformation: Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Bible Alone and Christ Alone...

Whether you see yourself as Catholic, Protestant or neither our aim in these studies is to have a better understanding of what it is to be saved by Grace Alone (God’s gracious initiative in Jesus), made available to us through Faith Alone (not by us being good enough). Further we will aim to know God through the Bible Alone (and not through any church authority) and to see that we can pray to the Father through Christ Alone (and not through the saints).

And here's the email I sent to their office (you can send an email from this page):

Dear Marnie,

My wife has been teaching Introducing God at her local Lutheran Church for some time. She is excited about your new course "Ideas that changed the world", but, as she said to me, "from my brief look it seems fairly negative towards the Catholic church- quite disappointing!"

She's not wrong.

It might surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church does teach that we are saved by grace alone, and through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It might also surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church is the only world-wide communion of Christians that teaches that the Scriptures are the Word of God, inpired and inerrant.

I have been an Evangelical Christian all my life, and a Catholic Christian for eight years. Together with the Evangelical Alliance here in Melbourne, the Commission I work for has been fostering a successful Evangelical-Catholic dialogue for the last three years. Catholics and Evangelicals throughout the world are realising that what they have in common is greater than what separates them, and in the culture wars we are partners, not enemies.

It is therefore, as my wife says, disappointing that you have chosen to produce and market a resource specifically designed to draw Catholics away from their Church and faith into a different way of believing. It is all the more disappointing that you have seen the World Youth Day as something to be opposed instead of embraced. The last 25 years of experience of WYD have shown that it has been a prime opportunity for thousands of young people to come alive in their faith in Jesus--precisely through faithfulness to his Church.

We do not live in the 16th Century any more. We live in a time when Catholics and Lutherans and Methodists throughout the world have reached agreement on the doctrine of Justification, and have signed together a statement to this effect with the highest Vatican approval.

It is true that there are many Catholics who do not know the teachings of the Church as well as they should. The Catholic Church is a large Church, embracing more than 25% of the Australian population. It is no secret that not all of these have been evangelised thoroughly. Pope John Paul II himself called more than twenty years ago for a "new evangelisation"--precisely referring to the need for an intense effort at the evangelisation of those already baptised. But this is to be done by strengthening them in their adherance to the Catholic faith, not drawing them away from it.

By all means, produce and promote a resource that speaks of the centrality of Christ, grace and the scriptures. Amen to that. But before you start using it to proselytise Catholics, please take the time to discover exactly what it is that we teach.

If you wish to contact me further on this, I would be more than happy to correspond via email, or to talk with you on the phone. I can be contacted at my office [etc.]

William Golding and Original Sin

In connection with the Barney Zwartz article in The Age noted below, there is a list of "seven classic books in which sin is a central theme". They are:

The book of Genesis
The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne
Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce
The Golden Bowl, by Henry James
The Heart of the Matter, by Graham Greene
and
Lord of the Flies, by William Golding.

As you know, I have been listening to Golding read the last book on this list. Here are his off the cuff closing remarks about the "picture" he had in his mind when he wrote "Lord of the Flies":

This picture was of a little boy who actually found that he was on a coral island and was so delighted that he stood on his head. this is one of the ways small boys show their delight... And that was one picture, and the other picture was of this same little boy crying, crying his heart out more or less, because he had discovered what actually went on, what people were like in society when you don't have law.

I think really you could say the most important thing said in the book is when Jack says "Bollocks to the rules. Why should we obey the rules? and why should we bother about the rules?" and Ralph says "because the rules are the only thing we've got." That really is, I suppose you could say, what the book is about. If you don't have rules, that is to say, if you don't have law, then you are lost, you are finished, you're gone.

Plenty of "Theological" reflection in the twin "Easter" edition of The Age

(Source: Michael Leunig, The Age)

Well, I'm confused. I have two copies of The Age, one delivered yesterday and one delivered today, both proclaiming themselves to be the "Easter Edition, March 21-22, 2008". The only thing to give them a firm distinguishing date is the weather report. Even the TV programmes are provided for Friday to Sunday in both editions.

Nevertheless, the result is twice the usual amount of secular and semi-religious reflection on the place of the Paschal Mystery in today's society. You might find some of the following a good read.

Top of the list is Barney Zwartz's "The Resurrection of Sin". Yes, I know, shocking title, but I will put that down to Barney's editors, because the article is actually worth reading--about the importance of at least some sort of understanding of "sin" in today's society if we want to preserve any notion of personal moral responsibility. My favourite quotation from this article is:

Sin, after all, is the only doctrine of the ancient church that is empirically verifiable. And its passing has left another vital concept languishing, that of moral responsibility.

In a similar vein, John Armstrong argues for the rehabilitation of the idea of the soul in his article "Beyond the Sacred - Reinventing a vision of the Soul".

The idea of the soul as something inalienable, as persisting and continuing even when completely ignored or denied, was important in Christianity because it allowed for the possibility of the forgiveness of sins and for death-bed repentance. But this is a crucial secular thought as well. It invites us to think of each person as always capable of a return to sane kindness, and as always in need of such a return.

Then there is the lengthy essay by Michael Leunig, Melbourne's favourite cartoonist and resident prophet, "Away in a Chook Shed". Unfortunately, this is not available on-line. It appears in the A2 Section of one of the twin editions of The Age. It is a whimsical (as always) but interesting reflection on the only only scripture verse his father knew by heart (actually, he used it as a sort of swear word): "Jesus Wept" John 11:35. Favourite quotation:

All this was made somehow bearable and simple by my father's enchanging utterance, "Jesus wept". I think my dad was unconsciously telling me this: "Son, ther's a whole lot of things you're going to hear about Jesus in your life that are supposed to bring you salvation, and go into all that if you want: that's your affair; but at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, then there's just one thing you need to know about him and it's this: Jesus wept."

He could be right in that.

And of course, there is always Catherine Deveny. Her column "Easter? Wake me when its over" (in the edition with yesterday's weather report) is, as usual, calculated to offend. (She even admits as much in the first line of her column). However, I found it rather amusing. Her main point is that Easter hasn't caught on culturally as well as Christmas, and for that we can all be grateful. Leaves us real Christians to get on with the business that really matters while the rest go camping over the long weekend (see Leunig's cartoon above). Favourite quotation:

Despite Easter being the Big Kahuna of the Christian holy days, we're all a bit lukewarm about it. No cards, no customs, no songs. Where's Deck the Halls with Eggs from Kmart? How about We Wish You a Happy Easter? Or, "On the fourth day of Easter my true love gave to me: four chocolate bilbies, three elegant rabbits, two panatones and a Humpty full of Smarties?"

Yes, well. I think we can be thankful for that. (Foreign readers may wonder what chocalate bilbies are. You can go here to find out how some have attempted to "Australianise" Easter in the same way Rolf Harris attempted to inculturate Christmas with "Six White Boomers"...)

Other bits:

Editorial: "Faith may be less strong, but hope remains"

ANNOUNCEMENTS of the death of Christianity, and of religious belief generally, have become familiar enough in Western, pluralist societies. From time to time, some of them are reported in this newspaper. But each year at Easter, as at Christmas, attendances at church services usually rise just enough to remind those to whom evidence still matters that such announcements are greatly exaggerated.

And, for the sake of completeness, I will just mention Warwick McFadyen's rambling piece that never quite comes to the point, although he seems to say it in the title of his article: "The Story still has the power to transfix".

The upshot of all this journalistic reflection is that Easter continues to confront today's society as a mystery requiring some sort of response, if for no other reason than the fact that we get a long weekend out of it.

Bruce Marshall on the Jewish People and their relation to the Church

Have a squiz at this, because it states the problem very well. I'm buying a copy of the book for our Commission office.

Fr John Dear SJ: Getting the Paschal Mystery Fundamentally Skew-wiff

"Skew-wiff" (for you foreigners who don't speak the Queen's English) means: askew, out of kilter, off line.

As in "Fr John Dear S.J.'s understanding of Christianity is skew-wiff".

I was thinking this just this morning as I was listening to him on an old pod-cast of the Religion Report. He could be talking about any political ideology, I thought. What's specifically Christian about his message? Where's the paschal mystery in his message?

Well, now we know. Thanks to an article in the National Catholic Reporter, Sentire Cum Ecclesia can now confidently announce that Fr Dear's Christianity is skew-wiff because his understanding of the Paschal Mystery is skew-wiff.

I mean, what do you make of this:

The Paschal Mystery. Who speaks of the cross today as a way to change the world? And yet isn't that precisely the methodology of the Gospel, the road to salvation, global transformation and peace? Jesus confronts the empire, enacts truth and love, saves humanity from our slavery and addiction to violence, and teaches us how to live and die -- by way of the cross, that is, through active nonviolent resistance to institutionalized evil. He healed, fed, taught, befriended, touched, fasted, prayed and campaigned for peace, yet the empire continued to oppress and kill, so he took the long road of nonviolence into committed truth-telling, tough love, civil disobedience and gave his life to set off a nonviolent explosion that would disarm and transform the world. That explosive nonviolence in his Paschal Mystery continues every time we join his nonviolent struggle against empire and the culture of death, and welcome his truth and love, his reign of nonviolence.

It does rather call to mind the disciple's question at Jesus' ascension: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). One would have said that even at that point they had a rather "skew-wiff" understanding of Jesus' mission and of what had just been going on in the last 40 days or so.

"Jesus confronts the empire"? Well, yes, but which empire? Whose empire? As Jesus said to Pilate--about as face to face with "The Empire" as he came--“My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (John 18:36). For the life of me, I can't think of one instance of "civil disobedience" in Jesus' life. (I think the Temple episode was more an act addressed towards religious rather than civil authority).

Maybe Fr Dear should meditate a little on St Paul's statement that "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12). I might humbly suggest that these were the powers and the empires against which Christ won the victory in the Paschal Mystery.

An Ecumenical First For the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family: Lutheran Pastor and Theologian appointed as Full time Lecturer

The Dean of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, Dr Tracey Rowland (author of the new book Ratzinger's Faith), has made the following announcement:

The Institute is pleased to announce the appointment of a new senior lecturer in Patristics, Rev Dr Adam Cooper. He is the author of two books and numerous scholarly essays on patristic and incarnational theology in such journals as First Things, Communio, and Vigiliae Christianae. His doctoral research, undertaken at the University of Durham (2002), was on deification in the Greek Fathers, issuing in the publication of his first book, The Body in St Maximus the Confessor: Holy Flesh, Wholly Deified (OUP, 2005). Adam’s second book, Life in the Flesh: An Anti-Gnostic Spiritual Philosophy (OUP, 2008), investigates the nature of bodily life in light of numerous contemporary issues, including biotechnology, sexuality, pornography, contraception, and abortion.

What the announcement doesn't say is that Dr Cooper is a pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia. This is the first time that a non-Catholic theologian has been appointed to a full time lectureship in international John Paul II Institute. It is an appointment of great ecumenical significance.

The President of the Lutheran Church of Australia (Victoria and Tasmania District) has announced that:

[Lutheran pastor, Rev. Dr.] Adam Cooper is accepting an offer of a three-year full-time senior lectureship at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne. He will be lecturing in bible, philosophy, early church history and moral theology. The JP II Institute comes under the oversight of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. Adam will be seeking leave of absence for his term of service there. Adam will leave St John's around the end of May.

Dr Cooper will take up his appointment at the beginning of June, 2008.

Sentire Cum Ecclesia wishes Adam all the very best for this new step along the journey.

It isn't funny being a Chocolate Bunny.

I left my easter gift buying too late. I went down to the Central Catholic Bookshop today to buy one of the "chocolate paschal lambs" made by the Friends of the Mission. They are very tasteful (and one expects, very tasty). But they were sold out. So it will have to be the traditional egg this year again.

Nevertheless, I rather wondered whether one would be able to bring oneself to bite of the head of the paschal lamb, or chew its bottom. Which is why I find this little picture below so funny. Apologies to any this may offend. Maybe it isn't appropriate for Holy Week. Ah, well. The best humour is usually inappropriate...

Disappointing (but not unexpected) News re the Pope and Luther

As we wrote below some time ago, the Times story "Vatican to rehabilitate Luther" was a load of nonsense.

However, we were mildly excited at the prospect of Luther being the topic for the Pope's Schulerkreis this year.

So it is a little disappointing to discover that there was not even this grain of truth in the Times story.

Vatican officials told CNS News that "the topic of the pope's annual summer gathering of former students this year has not yet been decided" and that "of the two topics under consideration, Luther is not one of them". What a pity.

"More Human than Human": PBS Documentary "How Art Made the World" meets John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"

What a fascinating documentary screened on the ABC tonight! It was, of course, completely overlooked by the Green Guide (which preferred to review "Dance with a Serial Killer" on SBS in the documentary category) and didn't rate a mention in the Age TV Guide either. I am speaking of "More Human than Human", the first episode in the series "How Art Changed the World" produced in Britain by the Public Broadcasting Service.

If you missed it, you get a pretty good outline at the link given above, but I was glued to my TV set for the whole hour. Like William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" (see blog below), here again was another bit of cultural introspection which seemed to reinforce Catholic teaching about human nature--this time, that our image of our bodies and of the bodies of others are seriously warped.

The documentary concludes, on the basis of the 25000 year old "Venus of Willendorf", the stable and enduring way of depicting human beings in Egyptian art, and the development of Greek sculpture, that our perception of the human body and the way we represent it for the sake of attractiveness arises from a complex interplay between the rigid dictates of culture and the more primitive "hard-wiring" of the brain which responds postively to certain exaggerated features in the human form. The presenter concludes that we never (in fact), ever (in fact), represent the human body "true to life" but that we ALWAYS distort it.

Now that is something to think about when we confess that the human being is created in the image of God...

But I can never stay serious for very long without seeing the funny side...

Fasting and Abstinence in the Lutheran Tradition

Pastor Weedon has a blog on the question of "Is there a Lutheran way to Fast?". Surprise, surprise, he concludes "Yes", and, even greater surprise, the way to do it is to go without food.

Glad we cleared that up. Quite different from Catholic fasting, of course. Or Muslim fasting. Or Buddhist fasting. Of course, Buddhist monks fast every day after 12 noon, and Muslims observe a complete fast even of fluids from sun up to sun down in Ramadan, and Catholics in Australia fast only on two days of the year (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) when they are allowed one normal meal and two smaller ones (one colleague once asked a priest what a "small" meal was and was told "A beer and a sandwich"...)

Okay. So there are different ways of fasting, but the same thing is meant. Fast = go without food/drink.

Problem is that Pastor Weedon confuses fasting with abstention, such as the "no meat on Friday" custom. He seems to suggest that Lutherans, faithfully following St Paul and in contradistinction to Catholics, do not make a "distinction of meats", and don't fast to impress God. In fact the practice of abstention, especially in Lent, differs among the Lutherans I know almost in no way from that of the Catholics I know. Here in Oz, the "no meat on Fridays" rule was relaxed some time ago, although many continue to observe it voluntarily. My nine year old Lutheran daughter decided on Ash Wednesday that she was going to do a completely non-meat Lent (fish included, however) and in general we have all joined her on this one.

Now I'm not saying that the oven-fried frozen calamari we had for tea tonight wasn't very nice, but it wasn't meat. An Australian farm boy notices these things...

Overall, our "meat-less" diet has made us much more conscious of Lent this year than ever before.

And while we are at it, check out this Thomistic argument on the matter of whether you can substitute carob for chocalate during Lent on Ironic Catholic.

Which raises the question, what would the Lutheran confessions have had to say about chocolate during Lent?

Evangelical Catholicism: John L. Allen Jnr realises that you can have the same name for different things...

"You know that something is changing in society, in history, in culture, when you have to find a name for it," Cadegan said. "Sometime within the last decade or so, a number of different people at more or less the same time realized they needed a name for things that were changing, especially among younger Catholics. … The name that came to be attached to this changing way of being Catholic at the beginning of the 21st century was 'evangelical Catholicism.' The ideas surrounding it are still taking shape, which makes it a powerful and interesting moment to start talking about it."

So, according to our favourite journalist on "All Things Catholic", Una Cadegan, director of the American Studies program at the University of Dayton, introduced a conversation between William Portier (Mary Ann Spearin Chair in Catholic Theology at the University of Dayton), David J. O'Brien, (Loyola Professor of Roman Catholic Studies at the College of the Holy Cross) and John L. Allen himself on the topic of "Evangelical Catholicism".

Yes, I know that "Evangelical Catholic" Lutherans will say these guys stole their own preferred moniker for self-identification, but seriously, I haven't come across anything that would indicate that Messers Allen, Portier and O'Brien have any idea that the term "evangelical catholic" is older than their own personal inventions.

Not that they are able to agree on what this "new" term for this "new" style of Catholicism actually means.

Allen reckons it has to do with the politics of identity, and describes it as "the most powerful current at the policy-setting level of the church". Portier reckons it has to do with an "attraction" among the young to certainty amid a "maelstrom of pluralism", yet they bend and blure the typical boundaries of the conservative/liberal dichotomy. O'Brien thinks it has to do with a grass roots personal relationship with Jesus and a contact with the Gospels.

Allen shows himself a real sport in citing yet one more dissenting voice, Fr Neuhaus, who wrote that so-called "Evangelical Catholicism" is "really just "Catholicism," no more and no less".

Yeah, maybe to all of this. Myself, I reckon that Allen is on the money with his claim that "evangelical catholicism" is a reality at the highest levels of "policy setting" in the Church. And I reckon that Portier is right when he says that the attitude of "evangelical catholicism" is about real conversion and the motto "You either evangelize, or you die." O'Brien seems least on the ball for me, although he is right to stress the connection with Scripture and with the person of Jesus in particular.

Personally (and I know its easy to say this after the event) when I entered the life of the Catholic Church in Melbourne in 2001, I discovered a very strong subculture of "evangelical catholicism"--especially among the young veterans of World Youth Day, but also among many older Catholics who were drawn to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal community because of its emphasis on the "new evangelisation", "Christocentricity" and loyalty to the magisterium but were not really "pentecostal" in the normal sense of the term. In other words, they were connected to CCR because there was no corresponding "ECR" movement. Perhaps Neuhaus is right. How can you have a movement within Catholicism to be simply what Catholicism is?

Well, actually perhaps that is just what we do need. My own opinion is that the definition of "evangelical Catholicism" is really much simpler than either Allen, Portier or O'Brien make it. It is simply that way of being Catholic today which is confident in its own identity (Allen is right), centred on Christ (O'Brien is right) and at the same time is, well, active in evangelisation (as Portier appears to be attempting to say). Evangelical Catholicism = Catholicism that Evangelises. That should be pretty simple. And yes, by its very nature, this is the sort of Catholicism which we will see growing in future decades...

Anima Education: "Walk through the Scriptures" (Ballarat 4-6 April), "Reading St Paul" (starts 14 April), & "Word Made Flesh" (starts April 23)

A small initiative of the Anima Network (nb. website hasn't been updated for 2008) and Catholic Women's League in Melbourne has produced "Anima Education", a series of Catholic Adult Education classes.

Yours truly is teaching two of these courses this year, and one of them is coming up in about a fortnight AT BALLARAT (so here is a chance for all you Western District's readers). The course is my usual six week "Walk through the Scriptures" compressed into one weekend course (more of a "100 yards dash through the Scriptures" really). There is an opportunity of "living in" at the Nazareth House convent and making a real retreat of it.

Click on this picture to download the flyer with full info.



Then for the rest of the year, I am leading a group called "Reading St Paul". Perfect for the Pauline Year, this 25 week course will be a reading group rather than a lecture, and we will familiarise ourselves with these earliest documents of the Christian Church and learn something about the man behind them and his message as well. This will be at Mary Glowry House 132 Nicholson Street Fitzroy, starting Monday 14th April at 6pm.

Click on this picture for the flyer and full info.


Then there is Anna Krohn's subject "The Word Made Flesh" on the theology of the body.

Click on this picture for the flyer and full info.


If I keep this up, I will probably be at risk of losing my Amateur Catholic Blogger status ("...we don't do speaking tours..."), but take this as my general invitation to all devoted readers of Sentire Cum Ecclesia to come and chew the fat (or rather, the meat) of the Scriptures with me.

William Golding: Lord of the Flies and The Spire

I have just finished listening to an excellent recording of Lord of the Flies by the author himself, complete with introduction and prologue giving his own thoughts on the work. I never really understood this book when we read it in year 10 English at school, but it really came alive for me in this recording. The choice of the title (Beelzebub in Hebrew means something like "god of the flies"), talk about "the beast", and the reflection on why it "all went wrong", are just a few elements in the book that give rise to a deep reflection on human nature and, what Christians would call, original sin. The final scene, where Ralph narrowly avoids being killed in a hunt by the "little boys" who have become complete "savages", puts all this in stark contrast when the naval officer asks "But aren't you all British?"

My personal favourite in the Golding opus is The Spire. If you are not familiar with it, get it out of your library and treat yourself.

Muslims, Muslims and more Muslims...

That seems to be about my life at the moment. You can check out reports on two major events that we held here in the Archdiocese together with the Australian Intercultural Society on the Commission Newsblog: the First Catholic Muslim Youth Friendship Night and the Commemoration of the Noble Birth of the Prophet (pictures and even a bit of video to watch, plus you can download my presentation at the Noble Birth on the Servanthood and Submission of Jesus).

It has been very hot here in Melbourne--the hottest Holy Week ever?--with a series of days over 35 degrees celsius. Cool change due tomorrow. I mention this because I visited a Malaysian Muslim co-worker, and was treated to a very welcome glass of cold orange juice and plate of fruit. My friend was suffering from gout. Which just goes to prove that alcohol cannot be the cause of that particular complaine.

Like a moth to the flame: Kafka and the Good Friday prayer for the Jews

...on Sandro Magister's site, www.chiesa.

He references two essays, one by Bishop Gianfranco Ravasi and the other by Rabbi Neusner. Bishop Ravasi's essay opens like this:

One day, responding to his friend Gustav Janouch who was asking him about Jesus of Nazareth, Kafka said: "That is an abyss filled with light. One must close one's eyes if one is not to fall into it."

What a profound statement. Especially in the light of the two prayers of the traditional Roman Rite, both the new (which prays for the illumination of the hearts of the Jews) and the original (which referred to their blindness).

One also has some sympathy with the Jewish fears. After all, is not a moth fascinated by the light of the flame?

Philip Lawler exposes "New Deadly Sins" beat up

...and apparently it wasn't The Times, but The Daily Telegraph (another British rag), which was to blame.

Here is his complete explanation of how once again the British media beat up a story in relation to the Vatican.

Quotation of the day

I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men. They are far superior and always have been.

William Golding, Introduction to Listening Library audio recording of "Lord of the Flies" (read by the author)

"New" Deadly Sins?

Am I the only one to be a bit mystified by all this talk of the "new deadly sins"?

As reported (yes, you guessed it, by The Times--but they are not alone in commiting this--at least venial--sin of poor reporting) Bishop Gianfranco Girotti of the Apostolic Penitentiary has said:

You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos.

As The Times reports it, he also included "taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few”" among the "new" sins.

Fair enough, but these sins are not "new", except in the sense that they are new ways of committing age old mortal sins not known to previous generations. Nor are they, strictly speaking, an addition to the classical list of the "seven deadly sins". These are "mortal sins", that is, sins that are objectively grave.

The "seven deadly sins" are listed in the back of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which they are, more exactly, called the "Seven CAPITAL sins". They are the attitudes from which all other sins spring. As listed, they are:

1. Pride
2. Covetousness
3. Lust
4. Anger
5. Gluttony
6. Envy
7. Sloth

These are opposed to the seven classical virtues, which are themselves divided into two lists of theological and cardinal virtues:

The three theological virtues:

1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Charity

The four cardinal virtues:

1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Fortitude
4. Temperance

Peter Kreeft does a very good job of analysing the relationship between the two lists in his book "Back to Virtue", which I highly recommend.

My point is this. Whether a sin is mortal or not depends on the degree to which they violate the 10 Commandments. The "Seven Capital Sins" and the "Seven Virtues" tells you what virtues are lacking or what sinful attitudes are present that lead to these mortal sins.

Looking at the reported "new" sins, I would relate them as follows:

Ruining the environment: Capital sins: Pride, covetousness, gluttony--and probably sloth. Virtues lacking: Prudence, temperance, and probably justice and charity too...
Carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments: Capital sins: Pride. Virtues lacking: Temperance and prudence, and probaby charity and justice too.
Allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos: Same as for morally debatable experiments, but certainly with the addition of lack of charity and justice.
Taking drugs: Capital sins: gluttony and sloth (if you think about it), and probably covetousness for a better experience of life than the real world gives. Virtues lacking: Temperance, prudence, fortitude, and most certainly hope.
Dealing in Drugs: Capital sins: Gluttony and covetousness (as in greed for wealth). Virtues lacking: Charity and justice.
Social injustice which caused poverty: Capital sins: Pride, covetousness, gluttony. Virtues lacking: Justice, charity, temperance.
The excessive accumulation of wealth by a few: as for social injustice.

You see? Nothing new under the sun, as the preacher saith.

The Mystery of the Missing Verses: What has the "New American Bible" done with Jeremiah 11:19-23?

Like his namesake, Peter Holmes is a bit of a blood hound--or is that a terrier?--when it comes to a mystery. And here's the current one: The "Missing Verses" from Jeremiah in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops own translation, the "New American Bible".

The mystery is the complete ommission of Jeremiah 11:19-23 in absolutely every edition of the New American Bible.

You can check it out yourself in any print edition of the NAB, or in the USCCB's own online version, or even on the Vatican's website, where the "English" translation provided is the NAB.

To add to Peter's list of other versions in which these verses ARE included, the Vatican's own Italian and Latin versions of the bible (the only other two languages they carry on their site) have the missing verses.

This is not a case of simply different ordering or numbering (as this article addresses). Nor, as Peter points out, is it a case of disputed textual authenticity. The verses are simply omitted. With no explanation.

Fr Richard John Neuhaus (yes, I know I have been going on about him lately, but he is so helpful in these matters) has very definite opinions about the NAB. But even he hasn't twigged to this one.

So? What gives? And is Holmes the first person ever to notice this?

Legal Protection for Special Relationships--irrespective of what goes on in the bedroom

Now I wonder what you think of this. As Barney Zwartz reports on his blog on The Age website, there has been a little group formed in Melbourne that goes by the rather odd title of the "Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee". It has nothing to do with me other than the fact that our Commission office was informed about it and some members have attended and we fully support its objectives. The real drivers behind the show are Rabbi Shimon Cowen and Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (the latter of our John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family). Rabbi Cowen has provided most of the "interfaith" flavour, but it has had a reasonable support from a number of non-Catholic Christian groups. Their reason for existence is to present an across-the-board religious response to a number of bills before our State parliament regarding family and bioethical issues.

Here is their latest proposal--one that seems to strike most commentators at Barney's blog as eminently sensible. In response to the Victorian Government's proposal to set up a "relationship register" for same sex couples, the Ad Hoc Committee have called for a broadening of application by removing all references to any sexual relationship that may exist between the parties so that it can apply to any significant relationships across the board that are not protected by other means. Click here for the details and then come back and comment on what you think.

Good for a laugh...

Here is another gem from Fr Neuhaus' most recent column:

Can you get a divorce without a marriage? The Supreme Court of Rhode Island says not. Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers live in Rhode Island but were wed in Massachusetts in a same-sex ceremony that the Bay State calls marriage. A year later, citing irreconcilable differences, they applied for a divorce in Rhode Island. That state has this odd law that says you have to be legally married to get legally divorced, and a marriage is between a man and a woman. Moreover, because of a residency requirement, they can’t get divorced in Massachusetts either. They’re not interested in living together in Massachusetts, or anywhere else. So it seems they’re in a fine pickle of their own making. Cassandra in Greek means “she who entangles men.” Homer might not believe what Cassandra is up to today.

Now can you imagine what might happen if Cassandra or Margaret were to decide that they wanted to get married (in the Rhode Island and generally universal sense of the term) to a male of the species? Would they be liable for bigamy in the State of Massachusetts?

Why? Because Religion Matters

One cannot work in a job like mine and not be concious of the essential role that religion has to play in society--no less today than at any time in the past.

Fr Richard John Neuhaus' "Public Square" column in the latest edition of First Things provides a few pertinent quotations in this regard.

Because the U.S. foreign policy establishment is religiously illiterate, because none of its members can imagine serious people taking God ­seriously, it cannot understand a world that is overwhelmingly religious. Having concluded that mankind is outgrowing religion, our experts react to religion’s presence in the Islamic world—and in America—by inventing the distinction between ‘moderate’ religion, acceptable because not taken seriously, and ‘fundamentalism,’ i.e., actually believing in God and His commandments, the immoderate first of which reads in part: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’

...For those who see the world through this lens, no religion is better or worse than any other, and certainly no truer, and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy is merely between winners and losers. ...Hence our experts have been unable to tell the difference between serious Muslims and the secular legions that clothe their hate and contempt for us in Muslim garb. Our establishment thinks that because religion is the mother of strife, the enemy of modernity, it must be humored and subdued in the short term, then marginalized and eventually eliminated. This mindset ­prevents intelligent judgments about why we might prefer some religious expressions to others, and ensures the enmity of all who believe in God. [Angelo M. Codevilla]

And this from one Professor Pinker of Harvard University in opposition to the proposal to make some study of religion compulsory for all undergraduates of that institution:

For us to magnify the significance of religion as a topic equivalent in scope to all of science, all of ­culture, or all of world history and current affairs, is to give it far too much prominence. It is an American anachronism, I think, in an era in which the rest of the West is moving beyond it.

But this one is my favourite:

One who has never disagreed with others about religion is not thereby tolerant but is treating religious differences as trivial, as if religious beliefs do not matter. That is just a soft form of religious bigotry. [Carl Esbeck]

No one reading any entry on Sentire Cum Ecclesia can doubt that its author expounds energy both on this blog and in his work because he is convinced that religon matters. Which is why I have probably disagreed with you at some point on the subject. And why I respect and welcome your right to debate religious issues with me.

Is the Mass a prayer?

Okay, after all that stuff about the "directionality" of the Eucharist (ta, PW), I wonder if we have overlooked a simple question: Is the Mass a prayer?

There is a lot in that simple question, however. Because if it is, then to speak of offering "a sacrifice of prayer and praise" must include the offering the mass. Moreover, if we can offer a prayer for specific intentions, and in fact ask other's to offer this prayer for us, why can't we offer the Mass for special intentions and request priests to do this for us (with or without a stipend attached, which is in fact an offering for the support of the priest, not "paying" for the Mass).

It is related to the question of whether the "Verba Domini" in the liturgy are "proclamatory" or "precatory"--ie. are they preaching to the people, or are they included (as in all rites of the ancient Christian tradition) within a prayer.

For those Lutherans who still worry about these sorts of things and still have east-facing altars: do you consecrate the sacrament facing the altar or facing the people? Note that not even Luther turned the altars around or invented celebrating from a table or the "north-side".

And if we concede that the entire liturgy of the Mass is indeed a prayer, then is it not the greatest and most worthy prayer that we can offer: the prayer that is not only "in the name of Jesus" but Jesus himself?

Further there is no contradiction between being given a prayer and offering it. The Psalms are the word of God, given to us, but they were meant for us to use as a prayer back to God, and not simply for preaching. The Lord's Prayer is given to us by Christ himself. If you want to talk about "directionality", he "communicated" the prayer to us and we pray it back to the Father.

Sacrifice: "one thing that the early Christians did not do"?

After finishing Rowland's book on Ratzinger (review currently in preparation), I have picked up again N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" (after a long hiatus). And lo and behold, one of the first passages I read has direct relevance to the ongoing discussion on the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Combox to this blog.

Here is what he has to say:

Among the striking features of early Christian praxis must be reckoned one thing that early Christians did not do. Unlike every other religion known in the world up to that point, the Christians offered no animal sacrifices. Some early Jewish Christians may, of course, have continued to particpate in the sacrifical cult in Jerusalem, and it is not impossible that the letter to the Hebrews was written to warn them off. Some pagan Christians undoubted particpated in the sacrificial cult of pagan deities, and it is likely that 1 Corintihans was written partly in order to tell them to stop. But no Christians offered animal sacrifice qua Christians. Nobody ever thought that the worship of the god now made known in Jesus of Nazareth required the blood of calves and lambs. At this point the evidence is clear and unambiguous, and its significance is enormous. Although sacrificial language was used often enough--it could hardly be avoided, since it was the regular language of both pagan and Jewish devotion--it is clear from our earliest records that the usage, in relation to Christian devotion and ethics, is completely metaphorical.

Now he has two footnotes to this paragraph, the second of which is the less intresting ("The exception that proves the rule is the use of sacrifical language referring to Jesus actual death; though there, perhaps, a different level of metaphor is operating").

The more interesting footnote is to his (debatable) comment regarding the letter to the Hebrews (personally, I think Hebrews owes its theme to the fact that it was written after the destruction of the Temple). Here it is:

Neusner 1989, 290, suggests that from the time of Jesus himself, Christianity saw the eucharist as an alternative sacrificial sysem to that of the Temple. If there is a grain of truth here, it is in my view hidden within a sheaf of misunderstanding.

Yes, in his view. I was at a meeting with a learned theologican of the Church of Christ tradition the other day who said I was reading meaning into St Paul's expression (1 Cor 7:24) "In whatever condition you were called, there remain with God" when I said it was refering to "when you were baptised". Dogmatic assumptions and traditions effect hermeneutics. Believe me.

But here is the really interesting thing. The "Neusner" he is referring to who made this comment is none other than Rabbi Jacob Neusner, whom the Holy Father speaks of with high regard in his "Jesus of Nazareth" and who declined to criticise the new prayer "pro conversione Judaeorum" in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

From a liturgical point of view, there has long been a basic thesis that the liturgy of the word in the Christian mass has its origins in the Synagogue while the liturgy of the eucharist was the "cultic" element in Christian worship which filled the gap left by the temple. The fact that Christian believers since day dot believed that the same sacrifice (hardly a "metaphor") which replaced the sacrifice of lambs and calves in the temple was present in the eucharist gives, I think, a great deal of credence to Neusner's assertion--a "grain of truth", maybe, but a grain which was in fact the "mustard seed" from which further insight and understanding developed.

It would indeed have been remarkable if a religion had appeared in which there was no sacrifice, ie. that sacrifice was something which its adherants "did not do". Now every Christian today would agree (Wright included) that in fact Christianity "has" a sacrifice (or "a Sacrifice"), but the point at issue is that religion involved "offering" a sacrifice, not just having one. The point that Josh has been making in the combox of the previous blog is precisely this (and explains the "directionality" that concerns Pastor Weedon in Thomas Aquinas": as on Mount Moria in the Gen 22, so (in Christ) God has provided the Sacrifice which (in the Eucharist) we offer to him.

(Neusner's 1989 article, by the way, was "Money Changers in the Temple: the Mishnah's Explanation", published in New Testament Studies 35:287-90)

Rowdy Teachers...

Where's the chalk when you need to throw it?

I'm currently unable to get a moment's peace with the shouting of striking teachers filling the streets of quiet Melbourne town...

And they used to tell us WE were noisy when we were students...

"Is that true, or is it just something you read in The Times?": Benedict to "rehabilitate" Luther?

You have to wonder about the source and basis and quality of this article in Times Online "That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope". (See also the comment here that deals with Muslims, Galileo and Luther).

Not that it is implausible. It's just that I can't find anything to substantiate it at this point. There's nothing on the Catholic News Channels (Cathnews, Zenit, CNS etc). They're carrying the story about the meeting between the Pope and Patriarch (see here) and the plans for the Catholic Muslim dialogue (see here), but nothing about Luther. All the stories that I can find on the net are referencing the Times article as the source, so Richard Owen must know something the rest of us (including Vaticanista John L. Allen Jnr) don't know.

Phil Lawler at Catholic World News has his theories about the reliability of the Times report. They generally seem sound. Certainly the quotes from Kasper appear to be patched together from things he has said and written often in the past on the subject. Note that the only quotation that pretends to be "direct" is the one "“We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” Kasper has often said this of Protestantism in general when he speaks about an "exchange of gifts" in ecumenical dialogue. Could Owen simply be picking up one of those "commonplace" statements?

Of course, the story is about the Pope's private "Schülerkreis", not something on the official magisterial or curial agenda. And suggestions that this has anything to do with "a drive to soften Pope Benedict's image as an arch conservative hardliner" leave me undecided about whether to laugh or groan. Some journalists STILL don't get Raztinger, even after three years of constant public magisterium.

Bottom line? I find the possibility that Raztinger should chose Luther as the subject of one of his Schülerkreis meetings more than believable. Only a Times journalist would be surprised by this, given how liberally Ratzinger peppers his writings with asides about Martin Luther's theology. They have a shared Augustinian basis, and a shared native language and culture. Benedict is perhaps the first pope in history to have studied and taught among and in dialogue with protestants. It makes perfect sense.

The pity of it is that the results of these nostalgic academic love-ins with his former students are rarely published (the Creation and Evolution meeting last year being an exception, but we still haven't seen that in English). I, for one, would like to see 'em.

"Ecumenism and Philosophy" - A book worth reading?

In the latest edition of First Things, Fr Richard John Neuhaus draws attention to a book called Ecumenism and Philosophy by Father Charles Morerod of the Angelicum in Rome (Sapientia Press). He describes it as follows:

Father Morerod persuasively argues that longstanding disagreements about nature and grace, divine initiative and human cooperation, are rooted in philosophical errors. Moderns such as Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche saw themselves as completing the work of Luther and Calvin, who set up God and man as rivals, by eliminating God altogether. Morerod urges that ecumenical efforts would be enhanced if we could all agree with St. Thomas’ understanding that grace perfects nature rather than pitting grace and nature against one another.

In Tracey Rowland's latest book "Ratzinger's Faith" she discusses exactly this point in a number of places and at some length. It is a topic that I have yet to get my head around (I am even more of an amateur in the area of philosophy than I am in the area of history), but contrary to Fr Neuhaus, I rather agree with Fr Morerod that the issue is a crucial one.

A good anti-dote to "Professionalism" and "Church Growth" ideologies in the Church

Catholics might not know the expression "Church Growth", but the phenomenon of what I call "professionalisation" in the the paradigms of the Church are not unknown. A good example is the rush for "mission statements". Fr Richard John Neuhaus reports on a Latino archbishop addressing a conference in the USA called “Paradigmatic Changes in Hispanic Ministry” who offers a good antidote:

The archbishop of that fair city, Jose Gomez, said in his address to the council, “The Scriptures don’t talk much about paradigm change. Instead, the Bible talks about kairos—the time of decision. . . . . The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only real paradigm that matters.

The bishop goes on to describe a Bible study for Latinos that the archdiocese is developing. The introduction asks, “Who is Jesus in my life?” and “Who is Jesus for us as a community of disciples?” Apparently the text is accompanied by pictures of Jesus as Anglo, black, Chinese, and a Native American ­medicine man. The bishop goes on to say:

I came to the conclusion that it’s hard to picture Jesus. Nobody knows what he looked like. Then I thought: Not one of these pictures even attempted to portray the Jesus we find described in the Gospels. The real Jesus. The Jesus who was a Jew....

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus asks his disciples: ‘Who do you say I am?’ (Mt 16:15). Notice. That’s a very different question than, ‘Who is Jesus in my life and for my community?’ To ask who Jesus is in my life has the danger of turning the question inside out. ­Suddenly we’re not talking about Jesus anymore. We’re talking about ourselves. About our expectations, our grievances, our needs. When you ask the question that way, you end up with a Jesus who looks a lot like you. Or like the people in your community...

Our people are hungry for the word of God. La palabra de Dios. . . . Our people do not want or need a Jesus who looks like them. We need the true Jesus who calls each one of us to become like him. . . . The fashions of pastoral ministry come and go. But Jesus Christ remains the same—yesterday and today and forever. Let us make the Gospel our only paradigm. Let us make ‘repent and believe in the Gospel’ our only mission statement and our daily task.

Fr Neuhaus adds a reference:

I am reminded of James Burtchaell’s wry ­ob­servation in The Dying of the Light, an invaluable study of how Christian colleges and universities abandon their religious identity. When Christian institutions start writing mission statements, said Burtchaell, it is almost always a sign that they’ve already lost their mission.

That's a good point.

Vic Catholic teachers to strike on Friday

Not at my kid's school they're not.

Vatican Statue of Galileo

One hopes that this will settle the matter once and for all. Sometimes there really is a final word.

Pastor Weedon's Inquisition

Nobody expects the Lutheran Inquisition, and certainly I was surprised to find it buried deep among the string of 59 comments on the end of a previous blog, but here is Pastor Weedon's list of "fess up" questions for me.

I think I understand a bit of what you're saying, but for a Lutheran it is not about "stopping fighting yesterday's battles" since the battle yesterday was and is part of the history of the Church herself and from a Lutheran perspective that battle still continues. Rome is not burning us at the stake anymore, true, but the points of contention still seem rather the same:

1) what is the source of the Church's dogma?
2) when the NT knows the synonymity of bishop and presbyter, how can the distinction between the two be constitutive of the Church's very essence, and hence church dividing?
3) Is grace a created substance?
4) does Rome persist in claiming that the Bishop of Rome is head of the entire Church by divine right? On what Scriptural grounds?
5) is our justification by faith in Christ truly exclusive of all works of the law, of all our deeds?
6) does the Church subsist in the hierarchy that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome or in the whole company of the baptized?

Oh, so many more. These cannot be side-stepped by Benedict's approach to theology. He wouldn't choose to side-step them, would he?

Heck, no. And neither would his loyal disciple. So here goes, one at at time, off the top of my head (they don't provide theology text books in the torture chamber):

1) what is the source of the Church's dogma?

The revealed word of God is the only source of the Church's dogma. This word was revealed to the prophets before the coming of Christ and most fully in the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. Christ himself authorised his apostles as teachers of his word to all nations and promised that his Spirit would lead them into all truth. The continued promise of the Spirit's leading implies a continued apostolic office. Thus the Revealed Word of God comes to God's Church today primarily in the writings of the prophets and the apostles, and also in the unbroken "handed down" witness of the Church. This sacred deposit of faith is guarded and interpreted by those who occupy the apostolic office today, the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him.

2) when the NT knows the synonymity of bishop and presbyter, how can the distinction between the two be constitutive of the Church's very essence, and hence church dividing?

Well, I'm not particularly sure how it became Church dividing, but I guess it takes two to tango there. I am reading NT Wright at the moment, and he makes the point that aside from the book of Acts (which gives us tantalising detail about some issues in the early church and absolutely nothing about other details) we know next to diddlysquat about the Church between AD 35 and AD 135. Sobering thought. Yet by the year 135, we know that there were distinctly bishops, presbyters and deacons in the Church. The Catholic Church generally assumes continuity of practice from the apostles (given that we have no evidence to the contrary), and thus reads the NT in the light of the three fold ministry, believing it to derive from Christ's commission of the apostles (he instituted the episcopate, which is the fullness of ministry, and the priesthood and the diaconate derived from that fullness at a later date). So what we insist upon is the office of bishop. Conceivably, a true Church could exist in which there are no priests or deacons, only bishops. Presumably the Church at Pentecost was just such an entity. So it is the episcopate that is of the essence of the church, containing as it does the priesthood and the diaconate. If some new testament writings give the impression that the ministerial terms were interchangeable that's because they were. But not because the episcopate was lacking.

3) Is grace a created substance?

Que? This is a new one on me. Where is that coming from? My initial reaction is to say "No", but I just know you are setting a trap for me here somewhere!

4) does Rome persist in claiming that the Bishop of Rome is head of the entire Church by divine right? On what Scriptural grounds?

We persist in claiming that the Bishop of Rome exercises the "Petrine Ministry" by divine right. The scriptural grounds are the usual ones (do I have to cite them here? Matt 16:18, Luke 22:32, John 21:15ff, etc. etc). These establish that Peter was given a particular ministry of unity by Christ's own commission. Of course the inheritance of that commission by the Bishop of Rome cannot be proven from Scripture, but depends entirely upon Sacred Tradition. (see my answer to question one). It does make a kind of sense, however. The exercise of the Petrine ministry cannot depend upon human right, because it would be effectively powerless to act in the cause of unity (anyone disagreeing with the Petrine minister could simply say "Oh, I don't have to take any notice of him--his authority is only by human right"). I could go on. You can see where I'm going. How that ministry is best exercised is, however, something we can discuss (as JPII the Great pointed out in Ut Unum Sint).

5) is our justification by faith in Christ truly exclusive of all works of the law, of all our deeds?

The justification of the sinner is entirely due to the grace of God in Christ. Need one say any more than this? The Catholic Church completely and utterly rejects all forms of Pelagianism. That doesn't mean that it can't creep in by the back door, however, as even Lutherans know. May I refer you for a fuller explanation to a thing called the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification"?

6) does the Church subsist in the hierarchy that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome or in the whole company of the baptized?

Well that's a devil of a way of putting it. The usual formation is that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. So for a start the subsistence is not in the hierarchy but in the whole Catholic Church. Secondly the subsistence is not in individuals but in this hierarchical communion. Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the body and blood of our Lord is identified with the visible elements of bread and wine, so the subsistence of the Church requires identification with a visibel communion. For this reason, one cannot speak of an "invisible" subsistence. All baptised persons do indeed belong to the one Church of Christ, but the subsistence of that Church is in the Communion governed by the successor of Peter etc. Is that all too much gobbledegoop?

Now can I get off the rack?

Rabbi David Rosen on the Religion Report about the Good Friday prayers

There is a telling interview by Stephen Crittenden on the Religion Report with Rabbi David Rosen about the Good Friday prayers. I have already refered readers of this blog to Rabbi Jacob Neusner's comments in his interview with Zenit.

In particular I point you to this statement from Rabbi Rosen:

But from my personal perspective, I don't think that somebody's belief that their faith is central for the salvation for the human personality and the desires of everybody should share that faith, I don't consider that offensive, I consider it theologically problematic. I can't personally understand how any one faith can encapsulate the totality of the divine, and that any one faith can be the exclusive path. But I don't consider it offensive.

So if somebody says 'I hope and pray for the day when you will be able to share my faith personally', I'm not offended by that. I know that there are some Jews who are mainly for historical reasons because of what it evokes, and the memories, the tragic memories of the past. But I'm not offended by that, and therefore I didn't use language in terms of my reactions to the Pope's prayer that suggested that there was any offence involved.

I've used the language of disappointment because I perhaps have deluded myself (but certainly there were others within the church who had helped that process) into thinking that actually the Catholic church doesn't believe that Jews have to believe in Jesus in order to find salvation, because the original covenant before Jesus' coming was a covenant of salvation with God and therefore the Children of Israel are in a category as a foundation of the covenant by which through faith in Jesus the nations of the world come into that covenantal relationship.

I appreciate his distinction between being 'offended' and 'disappointed' and also his point that there are still some who fear Christian proselytism because of past historical experience and memory. However, I think the "delusion" that Rabbi Rosen speaks of is real. There has been a delusion and we have allowed people (both Jewish and Catholic) to be deluded over what the actual teaching of the church is.

My own suggestion is that the reality is not either/or the Paul VI prayer in the Ordinary Form or the new BXVI prayer for the Extraordinary Form, but rather taking both together at the same time and that the truth is both inclusive of and between the content of the two prayers. As such, I like to see the two prayers as two 'bookends' in the realm of Catholic theology about the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people.

In this, Rabbi Rosen is surely correct when he says that "there is some tension between affirming the eternity of the covenant and affirming the universal salvific nature of Jesus." He is wrong to suggest, however, that Benedict opposes the former while affirming the latter. It is quite clear from Ratzinger's previously published works that this is not the case, just as it is clear that he is happy for the Paul VI prayer to remain the ordinary and usual prayer for the Jews on Good Friday.

There is, however, undeniabley a great deal of work to be done in Catholic theology regarding the way in which the Covenant in Jesus Christ is related to the Covenant of Sinai. All that has been definitively said is that the Covenant of Sinai has not been annuled by the covenant in Christ. This does not mean that the universal covenant in Christ has no application to the Jewish people or that the Jewish people are somehow an "exception" to the proclamation of the Gospel. This would make no sense in the light of a good deal of the New Testament, the Gospels included.

So it is my hope that we get off our high horses in this matter and start doing the hard work that remains to be done. As Rabbi Rosen says in the conclusion to this interview, the one thing necessary is that we are "open and clear about what is the nature of our relationship."

More on Raztinger as a "Theologian of the Cross"

Here's some more proof, from his recent encyclical "Spe Salvi":

In him who was crucified, the denial of false images of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith.

Sacrifice of the Mass in the Book of Concord

Some time ago, Pastor Weedon asked me to outline what articles of faith in the Book of Concord I don't have any truck with any more. Off the top of my head, I said their rejection of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the rejection of 4 or 5 of the seven Sacraments. I forgot the big one, of course, the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thanks to Christine and PE slogging it away in the combox of a previous post for mentioning this one. Here it is from the Epitome:

On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper;...2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.

I guess the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass isn't upper most in my thinking when I contrast Lutheran and Catholic theologies--and I am not quite sure why that is. Perhaps because the whole doctrine of the Sacrifice is so much better integrated into current liturgical theology than it was at the time of the Reformation. Both Lutheran and Catholic theology has advanced many degrees toward a common understanding in the last 100 years or so. I will cite the example of the Australian Catholic Lutheran common statement "Sacrament and Sacrifice" as an example.

Nevertheless, the difference is there. And it is one area of Luther's theology which I cannot in any sense share. Here I stand with Ratzinger (pun intended) as his position is described in Tracey Rowland's new book, "Ratzinger's Faith":

While Martin Luther said that to speak of sacrifice in the context of the Mass was 'the greatest and most appalling horror' and a 'damnable impiety', Ratzinger has quipped: "I certainly do not need to say that I am not one of those who consider it the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass." (p136)

Of course, the whole question of the sacrifice of the mass is intimately related to the faith and works question. To the degree that Catholics and Lutherans agree or disagree on the latter, it seems to me that we agree or disagree on the former.