Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I couldn’t find a copy of this on the internet that wasn’t dubbed or subtitled into some foreign language, but a Catholic nun, at the conference I was at on the weekend, showed this to us. Tell me what you think of it. It is in two parts here:

For a slightly more orthodox reflection on the same subject, listen to Fr Mitch Pachwa’s interview on EWTN with Fr Robert Spitzer.

Update: Incidentally, it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, who first came up with what was later called “the big bang theory” (he called it the theory of the primeval atom). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre. This is a fact that is conveniently forgotten by many who oppose religion and science. Of course, as Fr Spitzer points out, the big bang theory – as opposed to the previous theory of the infiniteness of both time and space – opens the door to the religious question in cosmography once more.

For myself, I remain in complete wonder and awe at two events that for me BEG the “God question”:

1) The “Big Bang” itself. What caused it? Why did it happen? As the classical philosophers put it “why is there something and not nothing”?
2) the emergence of life from an inanimate universe. No one has ever been able to explain (they skip over it even in the Amazing Universe video – but it is regularly ignored in most school science classes) the process by which something which was inanimate crossed that defining line between dead matter and living cells.

Our friend, William Tighe, alerted me to this, but now The Australian has a story on the possibility of the appointment of an openly gay cleric to the position of Bishop of Southwark. While reportedly “celibate” he has nailed his colours to the mast by being in an officially registered “civil union” with a man. If appointed, this will have two effects: it will widen the cracks already apparent in the Anglican Communion, and it will be another nail in the coffin for the ecumenical endeavour between the Church of England and the Holy See (nb. I state it this way deliberately – distinguishing this relationship from the relationship of the Catholic Church and Anglicans in general).

There was a time when ecumenism between the Catholic Church and the protestant communities was all about healing the rifts of the 16th Century (that was what the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was all about). However, these days issues such as the ordination of women and morality (eg. abortion and homosexuality) are just as divisive, if not more. I don’t have a crystal ball, but the overall effect of the new issues seems to be that the ecumenical scene is being totally reconfigured before our eyes. While Anglicanorum Coetibus can be seen as a reaction to the new situation, while the bilateral dialogues continue on the old “heal-the-rift-of-the-16th-century” model. As a result, the dialogues seem to be missing the real contemporary issues (as important as the 16th Century issues may continue to be between those communions that neither ordain women nor approve of the new morality).

Just doing a bit of research on Cardinal Ouellet (can a reader help with how to pronounce his name?), I came across this article concerning something the French cardinal said about abortion:

Ouellet…called abortion a “moral crime” as serious as murder and said it is never justified — even in cases of rape.

“There is a spin, saying the cardinal would like to re-criminalize [abortion], and this is not what he said,” said Jasmin Lemieux-Lefebvre [a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Quebec City]. “He’s not calling for re-criminalization. He was talking [about] a moral thing. This is a moral issue. He was not bringing this to the judicial level.”

He said Ouellet wasn’t condemning women and believes they need better care before and after abortions. He also said that when Ouellet discusses abortion as a political issue, he is merely urging Canada to offer some form of protection for the unborn.

The distinction that interests me is between “moral” crimes and “judicial” crimes, and the appropriate and just way of resonding to each. Discuss.

And here is another new face in the Curia:

Pope names new head of ecumenical relations office
(AP) – 12 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — The pope has named a Swiss bishop with experience dealing with Orthodox and Lutheran churches to head the Vatican office responsible for relations with other Christians and Jews.

Archbishop Kurt Koch replaces Cardinal Walter Kasper as head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Kasper, 77, is retiring.

Koch, 60, has been Basel’s bishop for nearly 15 years, and has served as a member of the pontifical council since 2002. In a statement Thursday, he said a “credible and sincere” ecumenical dialogue had long been close to his heart.

Kasper had headed the office since 2001, and was often put in the position of defusing Vatican standoffs with Jews such as when the pope lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

The Anglo-Catholic has some more (promising) information.

I am at an interfaith conference at the moment on the theme of the environment. We just had a speaker who expounded a Sufi Muslim idea of creation as the “writing of God”. There seems to be some parallel here with our Christian idea of the “two books” of revelation, the “book of Nature” and (of course) the “book of Scripture”, and with the Jewish idea of the integral place of the Hebrew language and script in God’s creating work.

But it brought to mind an image for me. I was once a professional librarian. Librarians love books. They buy them new and pristine and put them on the shelves where they look all nice and pretty. AND THEN: people come to use them. They open them, break their spines, write in them, spill coffee on them – all in the process of READING them. Some librarians never come to terms with this reality.

Of course, on the other hand there are some VANDALS (who deserve to be hung by their thumbs from the highest bookshelf) who tear out pages, rip off covers, deface the book etc. etc. The most extreme form of this crime is book burning. We will say no more about these base individuals.

But as an image for the “writing of God”, ie. the Created World, it is not a bad one. There must be a balance between the extreme fastidiousness of those (rare and few) librarians who have a phobia of people actually using their nice new books, and those vandals who actually destroy the books. The Book of Nature is there to be read. In the process of reading a book, the book begins to look different. Handling a book modifies it. Sometimes it doesn’t look so pretty. But it has a purpose. That purpose cannot be served if the book is left on the shelf untouched – neither can it be served if the book is destroyed or made illegible.

There is a balance here. It is focused on the purpose of the book. The book is to be read. The “writing of Creation” exists for human beings to read it. But woe to him who defaces it, and obscures the “writing” and its Author.

Pope Benedict has announced the following appointments

Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops: Archbishop of Quebec Cardinal Marc Ouellet
President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation: Archbishop Rino Fisichella (previously president of the Pontifical Academy for Life)
President of the Pontifical Academy for Life: Msgr. Ignacio Carrasco de Paula (a Spaniard of the Opus Dei movement)

There is no reason to be disappointed with this. We retain +George here in Australia, where his work in Sydney is far from “done”; and the job of Prefect goes to a non-Italian, English-speaking, non-USA Cardinal with a very good (and, importantly, unblemished) record and reputation. Wise choice, Holy Father.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also be pretty stupid at times. I had a phone call a couple of week’s back from a woman who was concerned about letting her children eat Cadbury’s chocolate. Why? Because it was certified “halal”. Someone had told her that Christians should not eat anything that is “halal” because it has been “prayed over to idols”.

Then today I received an email from a friend who wrote:

A Catholic women told me that one of the Pentecostals told her that Cadbury’s chocolate was Hallal- therefore it should be boycotted by Christians because it was “offered to idols”. I told this good woman to rewind and have a think… one this Moslems DO NOT do is worshop idols (for goodness sakes!!). I am frankly very pleased to hear that my chocolate had been prayed for… I don’t know about you.

So this was obviously more than just one person’s concern. So I googled “cadbury chocolate halal idols” and Google came up with 3,170 results. To call it an “urban myth” hardly does it justice. It is more like one of Dawkins’ “memes”, which are supposed to be responsible for religious ignorance.

Here is a full entry on WikiAnswers:

Why is there a halal symbol on cadbury chocolate?

I checked out Cadbury today at Woolworths!!! No more Cadbury’s for me!!! I will check everything from now on… It is also on my Bega Cheese. The symbol is so small you can hardly ready what it says.

This is absolute fact. Before Lorraine went shopping Monday I showed her this email. She looked at the products in the shop mentioned and they had the symbol hidden on the back of the packaging and in a very weak colour that was hard to see. Leggo’s Pasta Sauce has the logo on their bottles. ..

The LHS symbol is that of the – HALAL CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY AUSTRALIA

This is a Muslim Association that collects money from the Australian Food Industry for this symbol so that Muslims will purchase the product. Yet we are told the Muslim population are only one and a half percent of Australia’s total! On a recent radio talk-back show a well known host was alerted to this practice.

He hit a stone wall when trying to find out HOW MUCH money was paid to this organization and WHERE the money went.

It was explained that by buying those marked products at least you are supporting a religion that is actively trying to destroy the Australian way of life or at the other extreme the money MAY be supporting terrorism. Many Australian Companies are paying this money including BEGA, CADBURY and many other well known companies. Check before you buy. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING?

Until you know, support those companies that support the Australian way of life.

This is so wrong on so many different levels. As I wrote back to my friend, Cadbury’s chocolate is “halal” in exactly the same way that your roast pork is NOT “kosher”. No prayers have been said over the chocolate; the certification simply means that no pig products were used in manufacturing the chocolate. The need to state this isn’t as odd as it sounds, some thickeners – in cream, for instance – are made from pigs trotters, which makes those products inedible for Jews as well as Muslims. The only time prayers can make a difference to whether food is halal or not is in relation to meat, which requires the saying of the formula ““Bismillah, Allahu Akbar” – or at least “Allah” – meaning “God is
great” in Aramaic.

What’s the problem with that? Nothing, unless you happen to think that the God who the Muslims pray to (the God of Abraham, the God of the Jews, and hence, incidentally, the God of the Christians) is “an idol”. It might help to point out that Arabic Christians use “Allah” for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ too, but I suspect not. A little bit of knowledge about the rise of Islam and the specific identity of Islam as a religion that has been “anti-idolatry” since its inception might help, but again I suspect not. There are many Christians who wish to say that the God Muslims seek and intend to worship is “not the same” as our God. It is true that some of attributes Muslim’s ascribe to the Deity are different from the attributes we ascribe to Him, but then, the attributes of God in Jewish theology is different from the attributes of God in Christian theology too, and no-one is suggesting that they worship “an idol”.

For a complete statement of the case against eating Cadbury’s chocolate because it is “food offered to idols” (cf. 1 Cor 8 and 10), see here on The Salt Shakers website. If you decide not to eat chocolate that has been certified “halal”, I won’t be offended. As St Paul wrote: “We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” Or as I say, all the more chocolate for me!

I should have got the first prediction up and running on Saturday, but I was busy travelling (I’ve been in Queensland where it is a darn sight warmer than it is here in Melbourne – brrr). Now everyone is saying it, so it doesn’t help for me to say “I said it first”. Anyway, Prediction One is: Our Julia will call the election within a month. Cathy is of the opinion that she will wait and try to get some runs on the board. I don’t think so. She has a number of problems that she has to deal with immediately – one being the Mining Tax (aka Resource Super-Profits Tax). There is a temporary truce on the table, but that isn’t going to last forever. Either she will do a quick deal with the mining companies or it will be a long drawn out affair. I think it will be the latter. For this reason, she will be better to go to the polls now while her personal popularity is high, before everyone see that it is the same government in charge today as it was a week ago.

My second prediction is that we will see less rather than more of the “Prince Consort”, Tim. Already today there is an adverse article on the front page of The Age. The issue here is not that our new PM is “unwed and childless”. As Magda Szubanski points out, so are nuns, and they do a great job. But unlike nuns, Our Julia has a “hanger-on” (as my father-in-law likes to call his grandchildren’s boy-/girl-friends), and – as in families – we don’t quite know what to do with hangers-on. When the family photo time comes, do you include them in the shot or not? Official spouses of those entrusted with the national government and security are easy to handle. They belong. They fit. They have a right to be at their partner’s side because they have made a public sworn committment to them. They are family and so they can take on duties on behalf of the family. Hangers-on are not and cannot. Julia’s “partner” is going to be a problem for her because we don’t know what to do with him. We are not to blame for this. Julia herself has not made her relationship with him clear. Anyway, I think one way or another we will see less of the boyfriend during the election campaign.

On the 9th of March, 2001, I and two other pastors of the Lutheran Church of Australia were summoned to St Paul’s Lutheran Church in Box Hill by the President of the Victoria District to give an account of our Roman ideas to 18 other specially invited pastors.

You will find my complete submission here, on my Year of Grace Blog, along with the reply that was given by Pastor Peter Kriewaldt, a senior and well-respected pastor.

In this series of posts, I am “revisiting the Summit” almost a decade later to see what, if anything, I have learnt since. This post deals with the second question in my submission and Pastor Kriewaldt’s response. Click here for “Revisiting the Summit I”.

My Third Question:

3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?

Whenever someone asks me “between the soup and the fish course”, “Why did you become a Catholic?”, I always reply with three words: “Authenticity, Continuity and Authority”. These are not, of course, in any particular order, since they are all inter-related, but Authority is key here. Actually, to be perfectly honest, Authority is the key issue in the entire matter of the unity of the Church (aka ecumenism). Whatever form of Christianity you may ascribe to, the issue of Authority will be central. This is because all Christians believe that they are followers of, ie. disciples of, Christ. To follow a discipline implies a source of Authority. ALL Christians agree that Christ is that authority (can you imagine someone who calls themselves a “Christian” and yet who denies the Authority of Christ?). The crucial question is: “How is the Authority of Christ manifested to me here and now today?”

In Luke 10:16, Jesus says to a group of seventy “others” whom he “apostles” to go ahead of him: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” There is something pretty clear here about how Jesus exercises his Authority: he does it through real human beings whom he “apostles”/sends out into the word, and who exercise his Authority in his name. The same is reflected in the famous “Great Commission” passage (Matt 28:18-20), which is addressed to the 11 apostles: “All AUTHORITY in heaven and on earth has been given to me [ie. God the Father has given all Authority in heaven and on earth to me]. THEREFORE GO [ie. with this same Authority which has been given to me and which I give now to you] and MAKE DISCIPLES of all nations, BAPTISING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to observe all that I have commanded you.” And just to rub it in from another Gospel yet, we have Jesus commissioning the apostles in John’s gospel on Easter Eve (John 20:21): ““Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send (apostle) you.”

In all these cases, the authority of Christ is communicated directly and personally to his apostles. His authority is INCARNATED in their very persons. Now, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that this authority, which the Father handed to his Son, and which the Son handed to the Apostles, is in turn handed on by the Apostles to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church, and that THESE bishops in THIS Church continue to speak and teach with the Authority of Christ: He who hears them hears Christ.

But the Lutheran Church has other ideas, and these ideas are eminently outlined by Pastor Kriewaldt in his reply to my question at the Summit in 2001:

3) The locus of Christ’s authority is the word (Jn 8:31-32). Christ gave his keys to the church. The church also receives from Christ pastors who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the church. No one in the church claims authority; authority is a gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word. For Lutherans the word is interpreted by the great consensus of pastors, theologians and laity and given to us in the confessions, which always remain for us the ‘norma normata’. Tradition is also an important feature of this interpretation (cf my concluding remarks). LCA Synods do not create doctrine, they give assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions. Cf TA V.11; CRCR Statement: ‘Gospel and Scripture’.

While most Lutherans today would understand the term “the Word” to mean simply and exclusively “the Scriptures”, nevertheless the use of the tem “the Word” in the Lutheran Confessions is has a broader sense. Pastor Kriewaldt replies to my question “The locus of Christ’s authority is the word” and cites John 8:31-32 “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples.” This would seem to imply that “the Word” is “the teaching of Jesus”. But in fact Jesus Christ is “THE Word”, the “Logos”. The “Word” cannot be “the locus” of Christ’s authority because Christ IS the Word! The question is: Where is the Word heard today and through what channels? Through the Scriptures? Certainly the scriptures ARE authoritative; and certainly the Scriptures ARE the inspired and inerrant “Word of God” as a whole and in all their parts; AND YET there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Jesus intended his disciples to commit his Authority to writing and to collect it in a book and that thereafter this book would be the full repositry of his Authority. Even if this was his intention, a book cannot exercise authority on its own!

But this isn’t the direction that Peter Kriewaldt wished to take this answer. He responded that “Christ gave his keys to the church” and that “The church also receives from Christ pastors who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the church.” Well… is this accurate? Does not the Scriptural witness rather show us that “Christ gave his keys to his apostles (particularly and explicitly to Peter)” and “The church also receives from Christ successors to the apostles who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the Church”?

Peter replied that: “No one in the church claims authority; authority is a gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word.” Oh, really? What then was the Synod of the LCA trying to do in 2000 and again in 2006 when it set out to vote on the matter of the ordination of women? Was it not “claiming authority” to do so? And what of the Presidents of the Lutheran Church in their oversight of the districts? Do they not “claim authority”? And what of the Pastor who announces on Sunday morning “I as a called and ordained servant of the Word announce the Grace of God to all of you…and I forgive you all your sins”? All these acts “claim” authority. Okay, so that authority is said to be a “gift” – of course it is! But once it is given it is like the talents that the rich man gave his servants to use and invest: it is to be claimed and exercised. So let’s not split hairs over whether authority is “claimed” or “given.” Even if we dropped the ridiculous idea that anyone in the LCA actually “claims” authority, we would still be left with the question: to whom is Christ’s authority “given” and by whom is it validly exercised?

Pastor Kriewaldt says that authority is a “gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word” – but this still begs the question: How is “his word” communicated to his Church? This is where Pastor K. falls back on the narrow understanding of “the Word” = “The Scriptures”. “For Lutherans,” he sas, “the word [read: the Scriptures] is interpreted by the great consensus of pastors, theologians and laity…” There are definite similarities here with Catholic teaching (which distinguishes magesterium, theologians and sensus fidelium), but one might have asked for greater clarification. Do Pastors exercise authority differently from Theologians? How do the laity exercise their interpretative authority? And what is this “great consensus”? Who exactly is to be counted in “the great consensus”? How it “the great consensus” determined?

This same lack of clarity is in evidence in the reference to the LCA’s Theses of Agreement V.11 in Peter’s answer. This reads:

The congregation is therefore truly ecclesia and is endowed by the Lord of the Church with the Power of the Keys, that is the same power which is given to the whole Church and to the individual Christians, whom God has made priests and kings through Christ. Matt. 18:17f; 1 Peter 2:9. Tractatus 24, 66f. According to the New Testament the smallest congregation is as truly the Spiritual Body of Christ as the Church Universal is. Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 12:27.

This also begs the question: WHICH congregations are “truly ecclesia” and therefore have a valid say in “the Great Consensus”? All Christian congregations and sects (even “the smallest”)? Only those who are members of the Synod of the Lutheran Church of Australia? Or only those who hold to the Book of Concord?

Perhaps it is the latter, as Peter Kriewaldt explicity identifies “the Great Consensus” on the interpretation of the Word as “given to us in the confessions, which always remain for us the ‘norma normata’.” God knows why. I have never received a satisfactory explanation of exactly why those books contained in the 1580 Book of Concord should be accorded the status of any kind of NORM of Christian doctrine. No “Great Consensus” exists among the Christian congregations of the world on this matter. No “Great Consensus” exists even among Lutherans today on this matter. No “Great Consensus” existed even among Lutherans at the time in which the book was put together.

Pastor Kriewaldt acknowledges that “Tradition is also an important feature of this interpretation”, but this is left to a later question for fuller discussion. He then goes on to say: “LCA Synods do not create doctrine, they give assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions.” Well, yes, of course he would say that. We Catholics also say that the Church does not “create” doctrine, it only gives assent to that doctrine which it has received from the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. And yet, Lutherans say we have invented lots of doctrines. Catholics say the same of Lutherans. I have even experienced the process by which a significant proportion of LCA Lutheran Synod Pastors and Delegates (about half on both sides) attempted to create a doctrine that allowed women to be ordained. Of course, they SAID they were only giving “assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions”, but one half disagreed with the other half about exactly what this “scriptural doctrine” was.

The real fact is that Authority, its source, its validation and its exercise, remains a crucial question for any Christian seeking to “continue in the Word of Christ” and “truly be his disciple”. So, we come back to the question: When Jesus said “He who hears you hears me” – who was he exactly talking about?

Just a few days after he launched the new book “Shitstorm” (an account of the first years of Kevin Rudd’s Government and how the faced the numerous crises that arose – especially the global economic crisis), a real “shitstorm” struck the Prime Minister’s office. While only yesterday morning, The Australian was reporting that the rumours of leadership changes at the top of the Labor Party were now in the past, this morning Kevin Rudd is history and his deputy – Julia Gillard – will be sworn in as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia and our first female prime minister.

There was, of course, one reason and one reason only for this sudden (and historic – no Australian prime minister has ever before been dumped by his party DURING HIS FIRST TERM) choice of the governing Labor Party: the ALP MP’s realised that with Kevin at the helm they were very, VERY likely to lose the next election (that in itself would have been a point in history – it has been more than seventy years since Australians have failed to re-elect a government for a second term). In other words, they did this to save their own skins. It looks very bad, and is definitely risky (Bob Hawke replaced Bill Hayden as leader of the ALP just before going into an election back in 1983, but they were in opposition then, not government), but it was a lot more palatible than being returned to opposition after a single term in office.

The choice in the upcoming election is now more clear cut than ever. We have two genuine and accessible “Ozzies” leading the major parties – both in their ways more like Bob Hawke or John Howard than Paul Keating or Alexander Downer – but who are (for once) ideologically clearly defined individuals who truly represent the beliefs and traditions of their parties. I’m looking forward to the election campaign: Bring it on!