Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I followed very closely the journey of the Holy Father to Rome last week, but didn’t have the leisure to blog on it. I did have time (at work) to put together a list of links and commentary and video to Pope Benedict’s meetings with ecumenical representatives and representatives of Judaism and Islam. You may find this list of links here. I was disappointed that it proved next to impossible to find the texts of the speakers who addressed Papa Benny at these meetings. The speech from the Muslim representative was put up by Vatican Radio, and is well worth reading. But I couldn’t find Bishop Schneider’s address to the Pope or the address from the woman to the Pope at the ecumenical service. Nor could I find the addresses of the collocutors at the meetings with the Orthodox or Jews. I think it important that we have “the other side” of the story, and not just the Pope’s speeches.

Nevertheless, I was looking forward to see the Pope said about Martin Luther – a topic he had to address while visiting Luther’s Friary in Erfurt (and please note, as Franz Posset points out in his book “The Real Luther”, Luther was an Augustinian friar, not a monk – there is a difference). He did say some signficant things, highlighting two of Luther’s key emphases that he implied Catholic theology should have “in common” with Lutheran theology. Unfortunately, in the English version published on the Vatican website and elsewhere, both these emphases were badly translated.

The first emphasis was Luther’s search “for a gracious God”. The Pope rightly said (in his native German) “Wie kriege ich einen gnädigen Gott”, which was badly translated in the English version as ““How do I receive the grace of God?”. The Pope said:

The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. The question no longer troubles us. But are they really so small, our failings? Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage? …No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

The second emphasis was Luther’s dictum (again correctly cited by the Pope) “Was Christum treibet”. This was also badly translated in the English reports as “What promotes Christ’s cause”, rather than “What bears Christ” or “What promotes Christ” himself (not his “cause”). Of this he said:

God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. [This has been a common theme in Benedict’s writing right from the time he published “Introduction to Christianity”, right up to his encyclicals as Pope.] He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” [German: “Was Christum treibet”] was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.

As with Luther, Ratzinger’s theology has always been markedly Christocentric. He seems to be reminding Catholics that our theology must likewise seek “Was Christum treibet”.

He concluded his speech with these words:

The second challenge to worldwide Christianity of which I wish to speak is more profound and in our country more controversial: the secularized context of the world in which we Christians today have to live and bear witness to our faith. God is increasingly being driven out of our society, and the history of revelation that Scripture recounts to us seems locked into an ever more remote past. Are we to yield to the pressure of secularization, and become modern by watering down the faith? Naturally faith today has to be thought out afresh, and above all lived afresh, so that it is suited to the present day. Yet it is not by watering the faith down, but by living it today in its fullness that we achieve this. This is a key ecumenical task in which we have to help one another: developing a deeper and livelier faith. It is not strategy that saves us and saves Christianity, but faith – thought out and lived afresh; through such faith, Christ enters this world of ours, and with him, the living God. As the martyrs of the Nazi era brought us together and prompted that great initial ecumenical opening, so today, faith that is lived from deep within amid a secularized world is the most powerful ecumenical force that brings us together, guiding us towards unity in the one Lord. And we pray to him, asking that we may learn to live the faith anew, and that in this way we may then become one.

Pastor Mark has a post on his blog entitled C S Lewis To A Prospective Roman Convert: Rome As Much A Variation From Tradition As Any Protestant Sect.

In this post, he cites Lewis’ comments “to the effect that he could never become a Roman Catholic because it meant agreeing in principle to accept any new doctrine Rome might define.” I had a chuckle on that one, because in my experience “new doctrines” are far more likely to arise in Protestant Churches than in the Catholic Church. One might cite the “dogma” in many evangelical traditions of “the rapture” – a very new doctrine. Or of “baptism in the Holy Spirit”, another new dogma. Now, of course, Lutherans do not subscribe to either “new doctrine”, but I do find it ironic that a key turning point in my “year of grace” was the occasion when the Synod of the Lutheran Church of Australia put the “ordination of women” to the vote. At the time, it was only narrowly defeated (and a majority of 55% actually voted for it). The LCA to this day does not ordain women, but many Lutheran Churches do, and it is quite conceivable that the LCA one day will, if the numbers get up for it. This is indeed a new doctrine, and anyone “converting to Lutheranism” in Australia must embrace, as Pastor Mark puts it, “not just acceptance of [the LCA’s] dogmatic past but also its future“. Can I point to any “new doctrines” that the LCA does teach? Yes, at least one: the doctrine that artificial contraception is licet. This is another “new doctrine” among protestant Christians, stemming from the 1930 Lambeth Conference. I will leave that for another time.

But for the moment, I would like to investigate more deeply Lewis’s analogy of Christian doctrine to the teaching of Platonism (see Pastor Mark’s post for the full quotation from Lewis).

No Christian should fall for Lewis’s argument here. It seems to me that Lewis was never at his best when he was trying to talk himself out of the “call to communion” with the Bishop of Rome. The main difficulty all Christians should have with Lewis’s argument is that it reduces Christianity to a philosophical school, and Christ to a teacher of a “philosophy”. Yet as Lewis himself pointed out in his argument against the idea of “Jesus as a great teacher”, Jesus was either “mad, bad or God”, for he claimed nothing less than to be the Son of God incarnate. As such, he is a living presence in the Church, and not a past “teacher” of a “philosophy” or “ethic”. So it seems that in using this analogy, Lewis is being inconsistent with his own belief.

But my second reason for rejecting Lewis’s analogy at this point is the great text of Matthew 28, the “Great Commission”.

“All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me”, Jesus said, and then he commissioned his apostles “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them and teaching them all I have commanded you.” This text makes mincemeat of Lewis’s prevarications. Plato never said gave any such commission to his students. Nor did Plato tell his students that his Spirit would “lead them into all truth”. Nor did Plato say to one of his students “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church”.

The fact is, that unlike Plato, Jesus left us a Church, not a text. So when Lewis says (of his fictional Athenian Platonic Society) “if I found that their teaching was in many ways curiously unlike his [ie. Plato’s] actual text”, we need to remind ourselves that Jesus did not write a text: he authorised his apostles. They indeed wrote a text, but it did not stop there. They left successors to exercise their authority – the very authority that Jesus said was given to him and which he gave to his apostles when he sent them “to all nations”. They became the living sacramental representatives of the living Christ himself in the community which he established. And thus, the Catholic Church is not simply a society preserving the ancient text of some great, but long dead and absent teacher. It is the body of Christ, taught by Christ’s own apostles who exercise his headship among us.

I have just uploaded the text of my address to the National Conference of the Catholic Women’s League here in Melbourne last week on the topic of “The New Evangelisation”.

Please keep our dear Papa Benny in your prayers over the coming days: he is heading for one of his hardest gigs yet, the first State Visit to Germany. For some idea of what he is up against, you might want to listen to this podcast from Vatican Radio, an interview with Paul Badde, Vatican correspondent for Die Welt.

It is a very enlightening interview. Badde has no qualms about calling Berlin “a pagan city”.

Of great interest of course is the Pope’s planned trip to Erfurt. Badde has much to say on the significance of the visit for the relationship between the Lutherans and Catholics.

For instance, Badde says:

First of all the pope is not going to beatify him, but then again he is taking into consideration that he has been an Augustine monk. The majority, 98 percent of the Catholics, are much more Protstant than Luther ever imagined… And now, strangely enough, there are quite a few protestants who pray for the pope that he can give [them] new orientation.

Benedict may not “beatify” Luther, but I am very much looking foreward to what he does say about him on his visit to Erfurt. As Badde points out, Benedict knows Luther’s works well, and he will almost certainly offer some interpretation or some comment on Luther.

Badde concludes his interview by saying of Pope Benedict: “He is the biggest challenge to Germany since Martin Luther”.

Watch this one carefully.

Earlier today, together with a group of other Catholics involved in interfaith dialogue, I was working through the discussion document released by the ACBC on the Lineamenta for the 2012 Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelisation.

The second to last question on the discussion paper is this:

In what ways does the Gospel offer a way forward in the midst of disappointments and discouragement?

I then made this comment:

“I would have no hope at all, were it not for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it were not for that one fact, I would have no faith in God, no incentive for moral living, no interest in theology or spirituality, no hope for the future.”

The reaction from the table was unanimous astonishment and horror. They could not comprehend what I was saying.

I was, of course, merely paraphrasing St Paul, who wrote in 1 Cor 15:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I think the difficulty arises in part because the meaning of “evangelisation” has been “churchified” and we have forgotten that at its core it means to proclaim the good news that Jesus is risen from the dead and that he is therefore Lord (Kyrios). In the ancient world an “evangelium” was the proclamation of a victory of a king or ascension to power of a new ruler (eg. a new Caesar). Those who carried this message – the “evangelists” – were royal emmissaries, or heralds. Paul had come face to face with the Risen Christ and therefore had accepted the duty to proclaim this “evangelium” to the whole world (“Woe to me if I do not announce the evangelium” 1 Cor 9:16).

For myself, in presenting the good news to others, I have to start with the Resurrection. That one historical fact is the one thing that changes everything. For me it is this, and this alone, which gives us any reason at all to hope in a good God who loves me, and who is doing something to “offer a way forward in the midst of disappointments and discouragement.” From the Resurrection all else follows – from the goodness of Creation to the necessity of the Church.

Pope Benedict put it well and simply in Spe Salvi (43): “Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh. There is justice.”

Why am I a Christian? Because Jesus is risen from the dead.

It’s as simple as that.

[UPDATE: You can read more on the meaning of the word “evangelisation” in the presentation I gave last week to the Catholic Women’s League National Conference]

Yes, I am still here!

I just received an email from a member of the Church in Ballarat reminding me that tonight is Deacon John Corrigan’s ordination to the Priesthood.

Please pray for him, and keep reading the blog I expect to be renamed “Blog of a Country Priest”!

I will be in Ballarat next weekend for the Anima Education/Catholic Women’s League program “The New Mass”. Full details here.

In the midst of the introduction of the new translation of the liturgy (an exercise that is happening in a rather piecemeal fashion not only across the English speaking world, but even in our own country), I heard this morning a comment that should be of interest.

Father, Professor, Doctor Dan Madigan SJ was giving a lecture about dialogue with Muslims. In it, he was raising again the (now classic) corrective that the true correspondence is not Muhummed/Jesus or Koran/Bible, but Koran/Word-of-God/Jesus.

In this connection, he made the comment:

“The true sacred language of the Church is the flesh.”

True, nicht wahr?

A little discussion is going on in the combox to this post on Lito’s blog. Converts. What can you say?

It distresses me that many parish priests are putting forwad the petition from Catholics For Renewal to their parishioners and telling them to sign it. Many well meaning Catholics, not aware that the petition contains elements contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, are signing the CFR petition.

We can’t stop that, unfortunately. But at least here is an alternative petition to sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/AMDG/petition.html

I hope that in the near future I will be well enough and have the personal freedom to be able to blog more frequently. Thanks for sticking with SCE in the mean time!

Dear Friends,

I am very sorry about the lack of blogging from this end lately. Not only have I been very busy (and the business doesn’t seem like letting up) in both my work for the Archdiocese and for Anima, but also I have unwell for most of the last week – some version of the flu that the flu injections didn’t cover.

Being confined to bed has one benefit, I have been able to keep up with reading everyone elses blogs for a change. Of course, this week coming up is a big one, and you might like to follow some of the pilgrims on their way. I highly recommend either Fr Nick at “A priest downunder”.

Can anyone recommend any other blogs belonging to pilgrims on their way to WYD, so we can live the experience throught them?

Only two other things before I go:

1) I was very very sorry to miss the (first of what will be a regular weekly) Extraordinary Form mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral on Wednesday night at 5:30pm. Kudos to all involved, and I look forward to participating in future masses.

2) On Lito’s blog the other day (BTW, I understand Lito is not well, so prayers for him please), I discovered this delightful “partita” by Johann Pachelbel on the Lutheran Chorale “Was Gott tut das ist wohlgetan”. Apparently there is a whole stack of these variations on Chorales. If all you know of Pachelbel is his Canon, then here is something different for you. Shows why the organi is the King of Instruments, and why the German chorales should be better known by Catholics.