Sunday, June 29, 2003

Ratzinger on Unity and Communion 
Posted by Christopher at 11:45 PM

Nothing can be preserved, nothing can be gained, by division. For when the quality that was once the form of the Church is now used against her, it is no longer the same. It has been cut off, has become the expression of one's own self-will and, in the process, has been profoundly changed. Only unity can be fruitful. Augustine illusrated this with great forcefulness with respect to the experiences of his African homeland. . . . He exlaimed to the Donatists: Even though you have all these: the same Amen, the same Alleluia, that means the same canon and the same hymns, the same Credo, there is one thing you do not have: by rupturing unity, you have destroyed love; but it is in love that the Holy Spirit dwells, and without him you have but an empty form.

How can we claim that our sole focus is Christ when the Pope is the visible focus of the Church's unity? The answer is perhaps nowhere so clearly evident as in the fundamental prayer of the Church, the Eucharist, in which the center of her life is notonly expressed, but consumated day after day. Christ is profoundly and solely the center of the Eucharist. He prays for us, he puts his prayer on our lips, for only he can say: "This is my Body . . . ; this is my Blood." In this way he incorporates us into his life, into his act of eternal love. Following an ancient tradition, we, for our part, say at each celebration of the Eucharist: we celebrate it together with our Pope. Christ gives himself in the Eucharist and he is, in every place, the one Christ; therefore, wherever the Eucharist is celebrated the whole mysteryof the Church is present. Precisely because the whole, undivided, and indivisible Christ is present in the Eucharist, the Eucharist can be properly celebrated only when it is celebrated with the whole Church. We have Christ only when we have him with others. Because the Eucharist is solely about Christ, it is, for that reason, the sacrament of the Church. And, for the same reason, it can be celebrated only in the unity of the whole Church and with the fullness of her power. That is why the Pope has a place in the Eucharistic prayer. Communion with him is communion with the whole; without it, there is no communion with Christ.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

I came across these quotes today in Co-Workers Of the Truth, (Ignatius Press 1992) -- an anthology of "meditations for every day of the year" by Cardinal Ratzinger, selected with his approval.

Regretfully these particular quotes are simply attributed to "Ordinariatskorrespondenz - , July 10, 1977, published by the Pressestelle des Erzbishchöflichen Ordinariats, Munich-Fresing," which doesn't really provide a suitable context. It would be interesting to know to whom he was addressing specifically in these cases. Nevertheless, I thought the content alone it was worth posting for reflection.

Friday, June 27, 2003

Carl Olson gets with the program! 
Posted by Christopher at 9:28 PM

Carl Olson, prolific author, apologist, husband, artist, and editor of Envoy Magazine, finally has gotten around to creating his own personal website, which features a good collection of never-before-published articles and book reviews, lists of "faves & raves", and all saturated in a good dose of Carl's very unique sense of humor. Check it out!

Congratulations . . . 
Posted by Christopher at 9:24 PM

to Gerard Serafin, who celebrates the 60th anniversary of his baptism.

Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus 
Posted by Christopher at 7:49 PM

The task of the heart is self-preservation, holding together what is its own. The pierced Heart of Jesus has also truly "overturned" (cf. Hos. 11:8) this definition. This Heart is not concerned with self-preservation but with self-surrender. It saves the world by opening to itself. The collapse of the opened Heart is the content of the Easter mystery. The Heart saves, indeed, but it saves by giving itself away. Thus in the Heart of Jesus, the center of Christianity is set before us. It expresses everything, all that is genuinely new and revolutionary in the New Covenant. This Heart calls to our heart. It invites us to step forth out of the futile attempt of self-preservation and, by joining in the task of love, by handing overselves over to him and with him, to discover the fulness of love which alone is eternity and which alone sustains the world."¹

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Prayers . . .  
Posted by Christopher at 10:57 AM

. . . for John da Fiesole's father, who passed away yesterday.

Thursday, June 26, 2003

Misc. Notes about Mel Gibson's 'The Passion' 
Posted by Christopher at 5:45 PM

• Bill Cork believes that the media has not accurately represented the nature of the criticisms made by the ADL and a panel of major participants in the Jewish-Christian dialogue expressing concerns about the portrayal of Jews in Mel Gibson's The Passion (due 1994), as well as the general reaction of some bloggers to any statement of concern expressed by the Anti-Defamation League in general.

  I personally agree with Bill's assessment, since knee-jerk reactions to the ADF are characteristic of radical traditionalists like Sungenis, Vennari and company. While some critics (and defenders) of Gibson's film are prone to rhetorical excess, Jews do have a right to be concerned -- after all, we're not the ones on the receiving end of anti-semitism and negative characterizations in Passion Plays.

  Concerning Mel Gibson's film, caution and concern seems to be in order here: as Mr. Cork notes, Mel Gibson claims to have based it not only on the gospel accounts but on the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) as collected in the book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, about which Mr. Cork is concerned, since it since it contains extra-biblical elements not validated by the gospel account. As the panel argues, certain passages from this book, if rendered in the film, may "have the effect of increasing the guilt of Jewish characters for Jesus' sufferings."

• Validating Bill's concern about the need for restraint, Barbara Nicolosi had the opportunity to attend a private screening of the film with Mel Gibson and posted a favorable review, in the midst of which she proclaims that "Having seen the film now, I can only marvel that the attacks are pretty much demonic. Hopefully, the devil will end up spitefully biting his own tail on this one."

  Nicolosi's statement provoked an immediate and predictable reaction from an outraged Jewish reader, who protested:

  "Demonic? Protests against a resurgence of a libel that has sparked generations of progroms is "demonic" and "the work of the devil"? Well, i guess that's one way to avoid having to confront real oppression and real pain of real people - but of course, to your version of the Church, Jews aren't real people are they? Our pain at being libeled yet again is "demonic." I wonder if you believe we have "horns" . . ."

  . . . and so on, making for quite a passionate exchange. You can read the flurry of responses via the comment box.

• In a sense, the dispute over Gibson's film illustrates a major issue of debate in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. On one side, there are those like James Carroll (author of Constantine's Sword) who contend that "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred".

  If you adopt Mr. Carroll's position (which is reflected by a number of Gibson's critics), then there is no option but to condemn Mel Gibson's film because -- even if he succeeds in faithfully portraying the gospels -- it cannot be anything but anti-semitic, since the Christian scriptures themselves are anti-semitic.

  Like most reasonable folk, I disagree with Carroll. I agree that the gospel accounts does contain unfavorable portrayals of Jews, bearing the mark of the contentious times in which they were composed. However, the 'teaching of contempt' (i.e., the dispersion of the Jews as a sign of God's punishment, the degenarate state of Judaism at the time of Jesus, and most importantly, the charge of collective guilt) is *one interpretation among many* of the Gospels -- and an interpretation formally repudiated by the Church at Vatican II.

  Some critics infer from Mel Gibson's religious identification with "traditional Catholicism" that he must be an anti-semite. This is, of course, a false equasion -- 'traditionalist' being a loose term for a very diverse group of people, those subscribing to the "teaching of contempt" being among the radical fringe.

  It would be wrong to infer from the fact that Mel Gibson is a 'traditionalist' that he believes in the collective guilt of the Jews, or that it is the intent of his film to revive such a teaching. When he was questioned about the prospect of his film being offensive to Jews, he responded:

  "It may . . . It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons why Christ came, why He was crucified -- He died for all mankind and He suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

  I have my other disagreements with Mel Gibson's opinions about Vatican II and the Holy Father, but his belief that Jesus "died because of the sins of all" reflects the teaching of the Church, both in the Catechism of Trent in the sixteenth century and reaffirmed by Nostra Aetate in Vatican II -- and what every Catholic ought to believe.

• As for Mel Gibson's film itself, while I can understand the concern of Jewish and Christian critics, I'm going to reserve my own judgement until I've actually seen it. "Wait and see" is a lesson I've learned in the past about potentially scandalous religious films, having expressed my own righteous indignation over the 'Last Temptation of Christ', and which post-viewing I actually thought to be a decent and spiritually-moving, if theologically incorrect, film (Judas' Brooklyn accent notwithstanding).

Supplementary Resources:

• Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion
  Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1988

Monday, June 23, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 1:51 AM

Great Hymns

One of the members of the RFC mailing list recently requested submissions of "strong hymns from any age which can help us keep our faith strong." Given my Protestant background I posted some of my favorites:

"All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" - Edward Perronet (1726-92)
"All People that on Earth do Dwell" - William Kethe (d. 1594)
"Come Thou Long Expected Jesus" - Charles Wesley (1707-88)
"Love Divine, All Loves Excelling" - Charles Wesley
"O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing" - Charles Wesley
"Rejoice! The Lord Is King" - Charles Wesley
"Holy Holy Holy Lord God Almighty" - Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
"Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise" - W. Chalmers Smith (1845-1908)
"Just As I Am, Without One Plea" - Charlotte Elliott (1789-1871)
"Now Thank We All Our God" - Martin Rinkart (1586-1649)
"O God, Our Help In Ages Past" - Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
"When I Survey The Wondrous Cross" - Isaac Watts
"To God Be The Glory" - Frances Jane van Alstyne (1820-1915)

Regretfully, since my conversion my general experience of music in the Catholic Church echoes Thomas Day's famous scathing polemic Why Catholics Can't Sing. Perhaps some readers can alleviate my distress by recommending some good Catholic music?

Sunday, June 22, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 11:06 PM

Corpus Christi

The Eucharist is not a private matter among friends, taking place in a club of like-minded people where congenial spirits meet together. On the contrary, just as the Lord allowed himself to be crucified publicly outside the city walls, stretching out his hands to all, the Eucharist is public worship celebrated by all whom the Lord calls, irrespective of who they are. So it is an essential constituent of the eucharistic celebration, just as it was a feature of the Lord's earthly life, that people of different party groups, different classes and views are brought together in the larger context of his word and his love. It was fundamental to the Eucharist in the Mediterranean world which first saw the growth of Christianity that the aristocrat who had found his way to Christianity shouldsit down with the Corinthian dock-worker, the miserable slave who, according to Roman law, was not even held to be a human being and was dealt with as chattel. It is of the very nature of the Eucharist that the philosopher should sit beside the illiterate man, the converted prostitute and the converted tax-collector beside the ascetic who has found his way to Jesus Christ. We can still discern, in the documents of the New Testament, how people continually tried to resist this kind of inclusive fellowship and wanted to enclose themselves in their own circle, and we can also see how the Eucharist asserted its meaning all the more, namely, to be a focus of assembly transcending barriers and leading men into a new unity in the Lord.

. . . There are many kinds of gatherings of people, but so often they are united by what they are against rather than by what they are for. And almost always what brings them together is some interest that seeks to defeat other interests. Today, however, what binds us together is not the private interest of this or that group but the interest which God takes in us. And we can calmly and confidently entrust all our interests to him.

"What Corpus Christi Means to Us"
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Seek That Which is Above (Ignatius Press, 1986)

Saturday, June 21, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 11:53 PM

(Note to Self)

"There is no point in reading St. John of the Cross to say that you have done so. The only point to reading St. John or about St. John is to manifest a real change in your relationship with God."

Steven Riddle of Flos Carmeli

P.S. Another good post by Steven on the real vocation of every Christian.

Friday, June 20, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 12:20 AM

Reflections of Grace

In "Catholicism and Other Religions ", Chapter 14 of Epiphany, a Theological Introduction to Catholicism (Liturgical Press Sept. 1996), Fr. Aidan Nichol presents one of the best explications of Nostra Aetate and the Church's relationship with the world's religions I've ever read. Thoroughly orthodox and faithful to the genuine spirit of Vatican II.

In the radiance of the Epiphany - light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of God's people, Israel - the Church can see more, not less, even though the historic revelation is completed and we can expect no fresh truths but only the unveiling of truth's own face in the age to come. The Church, en route between Pentecost and the parousia, can continue to find analogues of her own truth in the cultures of the unbaptized; not merely, indeed, echoes of the truth she knows consciously, but instruments for the fuller appropriation of its inexhaustible richness.

Regretfully, the book appears to be out of print -- but Mark Alder has generously provided the entire text on his website here.

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 11:21 PM

It would be too much to ask, wouldn't it?

Brain reeling from the news of Bishop O'Brien. Gerdard Serafin offers the best proposal I've heard all day . . .

Imagine that the American Catholic bishops gather together and leave behind all ponderous documents and proposals, all books and newspapers, and bring just the Bible (even the NAB will do!). Then to put aside the usual schedule and simply pray each day - long and hard. On the knees. . . . No lengthy documents approved, no statements issued. No more words. Perhaps an imposition of ashes the only "statement" of this meeting.

Sunday, June 15, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 4:19 PM

Regretfully I was notable to make it to Manhattan today to attend the Anglican-use liturgy -- although I would be interested in hearing any reports from those who attended.

I did, however, manage to put up a new essay for discussion in the Ratzinger Forum. Bear in mind when you read it that it's my first attempt at something this size in quite some time -- I haven't written a real 'term paper' since I was in college. ;-)

P.S. Those who wish to discuss the essay beyond the confines of the comment box may do so here.

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 7:33 PM

Anglican-Use Mass in NYC

A pastoral provision issued in 1980 by the Vatican permitted the ordination of married men who were priests in the Episcopal church and allowed for a special adaptation of the Mass known as the Anglican-use liturgy, which incorporated Anglican traditions.

The commission that drafted the Anglican-use liturgy convened in Rome under the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. Finalized in Rome in November 1983, it is based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and -- for church history buffs -- incorporates elements of Roman Catholic prayer in use just prior to the Protestant Reformation in England.

There are six(?) Anglican-use parishes in the United States, and now an Anglican Use Confraternity group has formed to discuss the establishment of a regular celebration of the AU Mass in New York city. Gen X Revert has blogged this news already, but I figure it can't hurt to spread good news to those who appreciate and wish to preserve the best elements of Anglican liturgy:

Anglican Use Mass @ St. Vincent Ferrer, NYC 2:00 p.m. Sunday, June 15, 2003 St. Vincent Ferrer Church 869 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10021 (212) 744-2080). Directions: The church is between East 65th and 66th Streets near the 68th Street subway line (Line 6 on the Lexington Avenue Local service). Father Bradford of Boston will celebrate the Mass with Father Wilson of Brooklyn. Following the Mass, there will be a brief coffee session for everyone to meet and then discuss various issues such as 1) arranging an Anglican Use retreat on NYC area, 2) hosting the annual Anglican Use meeting in NYC during 2004, 3) ways to promote the establishment of an Anglican Use congregation in NYC, and other issues of interest.

God-willing and barring any conflicts, I hope to make it. You can find more information about the Anglican-Use Liturgy here:

• 'Anglican-Use' Rite Attracts Both Converts and Catholics by Katherine Smith Santos. National Catholic Register Feb. 2-10, 2003.
  
• Reflection on the beauty of the Anglican-use Mass, by Fr. Joseph S. Wilson.
  
• "Anglican-Use" Catholic Parishes, by Fr. Charles M. Wilson. New Oxford Review, Nov. 2001.
• The Order of Mass, Anglican-Use.

Posted by Christopher at 9:32 AM

In the climate of the Second Vatican Council, of ecumenism, of openness, the word "heretic" has become not only unpopular but unspeakable -- except, of course, among integralists, who often deconstruct their own identity on accusations of heresy directed at others.

But has the concept of heresy become completely irrelevant? Has our awareness of the duty of tolerance and charity toward the sincere conscience of others absolved us from the danger of the error ourselves? Or is error something we no longer consider dangerous?

I think a Catholic is bound to remember that his faith is directed to the grasp of truths revealed by God, which are not mere opinions or "manners of speaking," mere viewpoints which can be adopted and rejected at will -- for otherwise the commitment of faith would lack not only totality but even seriousness. The Catholic is one who stakes his life on certain truths revealed by God. If these truths cease to apply, his life ceases to have meaning.

A heretic is first of all a believer. Today the ideas of "heretic" and "unbeliever" are generally confused. In point of fact the mass of "post-Christian" men in Western society can no longer be considered heretics and heresy is, for them, no problem. It is, however, a problem for the believer who is too eager to identify himself with their unbelief in order to "win them for Christ."

Where the real danger of heresy exists for the Catholic today is precisely in that "believing" zeal which, eager to open up new aspects and new dimensions of the faith, thoughtlessly or carelessly sacrifices something essential to Christian truth, on the grounds that this is no longer comprehensible to modern man. Heresy is precisely a "choice" which, for human motives . . . selects and prefers an opinion contrary to revealed truth as held and understood by the Church.

I think, then, that in our eagerness to go out to modern man and meet him on his own ground, accepting him as he is, we must also be truly what we are. If we come to him as Christians we can certainly understand and have compassion for his unbelief -- his apparent incapacity to believe. But it would seem a bit absurd for us, precisely as Christians, to pat him on the arm and say "As a matter of fact I don't find the Incarnation credible myself. Let's just consider that Christ was a nice man who devoted himself to helping others!"

This would, of course, be heresy in a Catholic whose faith is a radical and total commitment to the truth of the Incarnation and Redemption as revealed by God and taught by the Church. . . . What is the use of coming to modern man with the claim that you have a Christian mission -- that you are sent in the name of Christ -- if in the same breath you deny Him by whom you claim to be sent?

Thomas Merton
Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, 1968.

Saturday, June 07, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 7:46 PM

Last weekend I had noted an article by Christopher Ferrara of The Remnant attacking Cardinal Ratzinger and Vatican II's assertion that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church". Lacking sufficient knowledge of this area, I blegged¹ the help of others to recommend some good books or articles on the topic. I'd like to personally recognize and thank Shawn McElhinney of Rerum Novarum (June 2 - "The Altered Eye Alters All", Parts I & II) and Christine from Christus Victor (June 5-6) for responding to my request.

Shawn notes that one difficulty with Integrist screeds is "how easy it must be for Mr. Ferrara to make such wide sweeping indictments which he knows his opponent would have to take some time and energy to unpack in order to refute properly." Christine also wonders "if it is worthwhile commenting on them at all, as he seems to question entirely the premise of ecumenism as set forth in Vatican II."

Obviously neither of you had to respond -- but you took the time (and had the patience) to do so. I also appreciated Shawn's "Prescription Against Traditionalism", an excerpt of which is employed in his refutation of Ferrara's objections to the word "subsists". I've learned a great deal from reading both of your blogs, and I'm sincerely thankful. God bless you both!

_________________________________________________
1. That's "begging via blogging", a new term I learned from The Corner. ;-)

Posted by Christopher at 6:41 PM

Hmmmmm.

The cover storyof the June 9 issue of Newsweek was on "The War over Fetal Rights". The online edition features an MSNBC interactive survey poll "What legal rights should fetuses have?" -- at last count, 66% believe a fetus has the same rights accorded to children and adults, as compared to 20% who believe they have same rights, but only after viability outside the womb, and 13% who deny the fetus any rights whatsoever. It's not a "scientifically valid" survey, but with 52007 responses (at the time of this blog) that's got to disturb some Democratic political candidates.

Posted by Christopher at 6:28 PM

It's a one world (religion) after all . . .

The latest criticism of Pope John Paul II's gathering of world religions at Assisi by The Remnant and Catholic Apologetics International.

No, wait. Sorry.

It's the further adventures of Damien, the ex-priest from Jack Chick comics! (thanks to Sean Roberts for the link).

Posted by Christopher at 5:22 PM

Clarifying the meaning of "subsist"

The original phrasing in the first draft of Lumen Gentium stated that the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ were identical and that only the Roman Catholic Church could be called sola iure, Church. This phrasing was rejected by some of the Council Fathers, who considered it too restrictive, scholastic, and lacking in an ecumenical spirit. A second draft was then submitted, which was also debated and emended. In the final version of this document, the emended passages substitutes "subsists in" for "is":

This is the only (unica) Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and which Our Savior after His Resurrection handed over to Peter to be shepherded … This Church, established and ordained as a society in this world, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, although outside her bodily structure there are found many elements of sanctification and truth which, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel toward Catholic unity.

Traditionalist critics has expressed their concern over the substitution "subsists in" for "is" in the following section of Lumen Gentium which, quoting Christopher Ferrara, "lends itself to the interpretation that the Church of Christ, while “subsisting” in the Catholic Church, is an entity greater in scope than the Catholic Church."  

In "The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church" (Homiletic & Pastoral Review Jan. 1984), Fr. James Connor helps us to attain a proper understanding of "subsists in" by examining the Acta Synodalia of Vatican II, consisting of the various drafts of the documents in their development with the accompanying oral and written expressions of the participants. This includes the relatio, or introduction to the draft presented to the bishops explaining the purpose and meaning of each section and the document as a whole, and the modi, or emendments to the text recommended by the Council fathers which were then rejected or incorporated into the text.

While such sources are usually not necessary for understanding a document, Fr. Conner believes they can be of particular assistance in situations where a specific section is subject to various interpretations, as in the case of the phrase "subsists in the Catholic Church" (" subsistit in Ecclesia catholica"). The written relatio concerning this particular section of LG reads as follows:

From the great number of observations and objections, which were brought forth by the bishops in respect to this paragraph (as it appeared in the working draft), it is evident that the intention and context of this section were not clear to all.

Now, the intention is to show that the Church, whose deep and hidden nature is described and which is perpetually united with Christ and His work, is concretely found here on earth in the Catholic Church. This visible Church reveals a mystery—not without shadows until it is brought to full light, just as the Lord Himself through His "emptying out" came to glory. Thus there is to be avoided the impression that the description which the Council sets forth of the Church is merely idealistic and unreal.

Therefore, a clearer subdivision is set forth, in which the following points are successively treated:

a) The mystery of the Church is present in and manifested in a concrete society. The visible assembly and the spiritual element are not two realities, but one complex reality, embracing the divine and human, the means of salvation and the fruit of salvation. This is illustrated by an analogy with the Word Incarnate.

b) The Church is one only (unica), and here on earth is present in the Catholic Church, although outside of her there are found ecclesial elements.

Use of the term "subsists in" is not confined to Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Connor identifies five other cases in which the term "subsistere" was used in Vatican II documents, appearing in various translations as "to dwell in", "to exist in", "to endure in", as well as literally "to subsist in."

He goes on to explain that a proper understanding of the term can be attained only through the examination of the relationship between between the Church's and the "ecclesial elements" outside of her visible boundaries, since it was precisely because of this relationship that the term was used.

The relationship between the Church and the "ecclesial elements" outside her boundaries was expressed in the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), which recognized elements of sanctification and truth in separated churches and communities which have their source in -- and derive their efficacy from -- the Catholic Church, and which assist in the salvation of those Christians who do not enjoy a perfect communion with the Church of Christ. Fr. Conner notes that:

Any student of St. Augustine's works will recognize that the teaching of Vatican Council II on the ecclesial elements present outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church, as I have just attempted to outline it, is similar to Augustine's position on the matter taken during his controversy with the Donatists. He wrote in his tract On Baptism: "… there is one church which alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in these communions of different bodies which are separate from itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in each of them that she, not they, has the power of generation."

According to Fr. Conner, "the presence of these Catholic elements outside the visible bounds has occasioned a new terminology — not a new fact, since the fact was seen already by Augustine. This terminology speaks of the Church of Christ as subsisting in the Catholic Church and of elements of this Catholic Church subsisting in the separated Christian Churches and Communities."

Fr. Conner's article has written a good article which assists in clearing up certain misunderstandings concerning ecumenism and false conceptions of the Church, and I encourage those curious about this topic to read it.

Monday, June 02, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 12:32 AM

Cardinal Ratzinger accused of "Theological Malpractice"?

I spent the better part of this afternoon reading various texts on ecclesiology by Cardinal Ratzinger, motivated by a provocative article by Christopher Ferarra in The Remnant who, responding to The Wanderer's criticisms of The Great Facade, accuses Cardinal Ratzinger of engaging in Clintonian wordplay (A Case of Theological Malpractice: Cardinal Ratzinger, Omar Gutiérrez, and the meaning of "is").

I've been perusing some of Ratzinger's articles and addresses (that ol' RFC website sure comes in handy sometimes, doesn't it?), as well as the book Called to Communion (Ignatius Press 1996). However, lacking a background in Catholic theology, I would certainly appreciate some supplementary recommendations of good articles and books on the topic (clarifying Ratzinger & Vatican II, I mean -- after reading The Remnant I've got a pretty good grasp of the traditionalist perspective on such).

Given the potential for an extended discussion I've moved my introductory post to the forum, rather than this blog. Feel free to join in.

Sunday, June 01, 2003

Posted by Christopher at 2:42 AM

Robert Duvall's "The Apostle" is one of my favorite contemporary religious films. It's a story of a Southern Pentacostal pastor named Sonny who, after committing grave sin and fleeing the law, ultimately redeems himself (and others) through moral accountability. Duvall says:

Some religious people might ask why I would make such a movie and emphasize that this evangelical preacher has weaknesses. And my answer is that we either accept weaknesses in good people or we have to tear pages out of the bible. I would have to rip the Psalms out of the bible and never read them again. Because no one less than the greatest king of Israel, King David, the author of the Psalms, sent a man out to die in battle so that he could sleep with his wife. And that was a far more evil thing than anything Sonny would ever, ever do.

Duvall's interest in portraying this distinctly American brand of Christianity was born from an encounter with a Pentacostal preacher in Arkansas more than thirty years ago. Regarding other attempts at depicting the Pentacostal tradition, Duvall comments "They patronize . . . They put quotation marks around the preacher. They don’t give the minister or his congregation their due." The Apostle, however, can be commended for a realistic depiction of religious faith refreshingly free of such condescension.

I was initially drawn to the film upon learning that Duvall not only wrote the script, directed the film, and starred in it himself, but put up 5 million of his own money to produce it himself. Here's an interview with Robert Duvall from the University of Nebraska's Journal of Religion and Film on his inspiration for making "The Apostle".

(Thanks to David Mills from Mere Comments for the link).

Posted by Christopher at 2:39 AM

William Luse confesses that he is "not a theologian, just another layman trying to extrapolate from a set of premises, those basic catechetical postulates, held in common by us all" -- and proceeds to do an admirable job of theological explication worthy of the profession. Check out his latest in a series of posts, "Letter to a Priest (continued)" for a thoughtful challenge to the speculations of his parish priest.