The Irenicist Moonie

The other day I was in the movie store and I was approached by the most unlikely of all persons. An lanky Asian fellow sauntered up to me, wearing a backpack with some bells attached to it that jingled whenever he walked. He said, "Hello," in an awkward kind of way and then immediately handed me a laminated cared which read:

Hello. My name is Assem and I am from Kazakhstan. I am raising money for the Unification Church [i.e., Revered Moon] for the purpose of the Unification of World Christianity. Even a donation of $10 or $15 would go to great lengths to...

At this point I stopped reading. Seeing he knew very little English (hence the card), I said, "No. Catholic." He said, "You Catholic?" I said, "Yes. Catholic." He pointed to the card where it said "Unification of World Christianity" and said in extremely broken English, "but this for unification of world Christianity" and stressed this last word, as if I had missed the fact that he was trying to unify Christianity. I politely said no and turned away from him, and he walked away very sad and confused about why another Christian would in any way oppose uniting all Christianity under the auspices of Reverend Moon.

Of course, most enthusiasts of pan-Christianity are not Moonies and would not promote their agenda by wearing bells and asking for donations in the movie store. But Assem's attitude of shock and dismay that I was not in favor of "uniting" call Christian churches is not that uncommon even among Catholics.

Christian unity is something to be earnestly desired, following our Lord's words in the Gospel of John in which He prayed that "they all would be one" (John 17:8-26). The Church understands this oneness as one of the true marks of her own authenticity: she is one because she shares the same doctrine and partakes of the same sacraments (her apostolicity is also connected to her oneness, though this pertains to her historical oneness rather than her theological oneness). No Christian of any denomination who takes our Lord seriously can admit that the 22,000 non-Catholic denominations is God's will. This is a good way to begin making an apologetic for the Catholic Church to a Protestant, by the way. Ask them, "Do you really think it is God's will for there to be over 22,000 Christian denominations?" I have never had somebody reply 'yes.'

So we should desire Christian unity, and in fact it is a mark of the true Church. But unity (and this is what is so often missed) is not an ultimate end or characteristic in itself. Unity points beyond itself, for to be unified begs the question, unified around what? In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned against an ecumenical understanding that called for a union of all Christians without regard to the ecclesiological dimension of the divisions in Christendom. The "irenism" was, in the words of Pius XII, the belief that:

[T]he dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution (HG 43).

Unity is unity around something, and that something is the Catholic faith. Unless the unity is centered on the true faith, then it is not a unity to be worked or even hoped for. I wonder often what the ecclesiology is behind the prayers for Christian unity and Word Christian Unity Day. What is meant by this phrase "unity"? If we are to believe Cardinal Dulles, it certainly does not mean conversion to the one, true faith, but means, in his words:

...a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II’s idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an “exchange of gifts.” (First Things, Dec. 2007)

Well, I am sorry if it sounds boorish, but if this is what is meant by Christian unity and the unification of all churches, then no, I am certainly not in favor of it. In fact, I am dead opposed to it. Not that I am opposed to Christian unity - all Catholics must be in favor of Christian unity, but the key to the problem lies in the definition of unity.

Unity around the Chair of Peter. Unity around the apostolic faith. Unity that comes with conversion, and a humble submission to the Holy See. I am certainly in favor of this kind of unity. Next time somebody talks to you about Christian unity, perhaps ask them "unity around what?" They might tell you something like, "well, unity on the essentials of Christianity." Essentials is another word like unity that can mean many things (as I have pointed out here)...but at least this gets the conversation started about what unity actually is and what is has to be based around. Nobody is helped when we do a lot of talking about a non-commital, adogmatic, limp-wristed unity that is nothing more than compromise and ecclesiological political correctness.

Thoughts on PCED and the CDF

The big news in the SSPX excommunications in the past week and a half is that Pope Benedict has placed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The liberal media has been trumpeting this as the Pope disciplining a commission-run-wild, at which he is angry over the Bishop Williamson debacle.

But what I wonder is this: has it been stated anywhere by anybody with any authority that the decision to place Ecclesia Dei under the authority of the CDF was in fact a disciplinary one? The popular take on this is that this was Benedict's way of disciplining a commission that was a loose cannon, as if Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was doing all the footwork in preparation for the lifting of the excommunications without Benedict's knowledge. In the secular mindset, being placed under somebody else is always an insult because everything is about a power struggle. But has anybody in the Vatican actually said this was a disciplinary move by the Pope?

I think it actually could be strategic. By placing PCED under the jurisdiction of the CDF and not the CDWDS, Benedict has connected issues relating to the Traditional Latin Mass with doctrine, not discipline. This is interesting, because it says two things to me (1) This may be a move to show that the Pope is serious about addressing the deeper theological issues that still divide the SSPX from the Church, and (2) It may prove an occasion for a broader, more general (and I think more important) explication of Vatican II itself.

How long have faithful Catholics been wishing for the Pope to give some sort of authoritative interpretation of Vatican II to the Church to put an end once and for all to all the anarchy? I think the SSPX situation could provide Benedict with the opportunity and pretext to have this discussion about this elephant in the room. It seems that positioning PCED under the CDF could be the first move in preparing the Church for addressing the real question that has begged resolution for the past forty years. Therefore, I am not entirely buying the idea that the movement of PCED is punishment, though I may of course be completely ignorant and mistaken.

Think about the possibility for important clarifications that could arise from a doctrinal discussion with the SSPX - the Church could clear up confusion about ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, liturgical issues and the role of the Church in the world and the true interpretation of the documents of Vatican II. I dialoguing with the SSPX openly on the level of doctrine the Pope would have to address these issues, and knowing Benedict, the statements he would make would be concise and unambiguous affirmations of tradition with an emphasis on righting errant interpretations of Vatican II, both those which reject it and those which treat the Council itself as a super-dogma.

I am glad the PCED is now under the CDF and I hope this is laying the ground work for an important doctrinal clarification of Vatican II, which could happen in the context of a SSPX dialogue.

Msgr. Langham on TAC union

I came across this article today on the proposed union of the TAC with the Church by means of a personal prelature. It is an interview with Msgr. Marc Langham, an official at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. I don't know about you, but to me the statements of Msgr. Langham quoted in this article reveal an attitude about ecumenism that I hope is not the norm within Vatican circles. Here's the article from CNA with my comments and emphases.

Traditional Anglican union with Catholics ‘unlikely,’ Vatican official argues

Rome, Feb 3, 2009 / 03:43 am (CNA).- Casting doubt on media reports, a Vatican official familiar with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of Traditional Anglicans potentially entering the Catholic Church, has described as the scenario as “unlikely.”

Speaking to SIR News, Msgr. Marc Langham, an official at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said “indiscretions” and “media rumors that do not correspond to the truth” have surrounded the reporting of the Catholic Church’s relations with the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a group which has broken away from the Anglican Communion based in Canterbury.

“We have not been informed that this is going to happen; maybe the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is more informed but we have not received any update,” he said. “All we know is what we have read on newspapers and on some blogs.”

“What is on the Internet and in the press seems quite strange [Why? What is so strange about people reuniting with Rome?]. It seems to me to be very unlikely,” he continued.

This is unlikely because “conversion is a personal process and a group of so many people could hardly be accepted,” he argued [Pause. Okay, a group of so many people could "hardly be accepted?" That is insane. If I understand him right, he is saying that because conversions are personal, they cannot accept en masse returnees? That is crazy: first, mass conversions/returns are the way the Church has always functioned. What about the 1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk that gave us the Uniate Catholics? What about the reception of 3000 Assyrians into the Catholic Church en masse just last Spring? This kind of thing is business as usual in the Catholic Church and (in my opinion) it is idiotic to say that just because conversion is personal means we can't accept returnees en masse. Second, I would say that it has never been necessary for every single individual who wants union with the Church to go through a personal formal initiation process. This goes right back to St. Paul, who baptized heads of households and thereby everyone else in the household converted as well in deference to the judgment of the head. If the heads of the TAC want union, then it stands to reason that anybody who remains in the TAC obviously wants union too and agrees with their leader's positions - the fact that they remain in the TAC after the talk of union is evidence of their personal desire for it. This Msgr. Langham sounds like he wants each and every TAC member to go sign up for RCIA at some parish somewhere] .

He also criticized the TAC’s reported membership of 500,000 as an “overestimation,” saying it is a “very small group” [And that matters why? The Good Shepherd goes looking after the one who has gone astray. He doesn't say, "Well, it was only one...no big loss"].

Msgr. Langham added that TAC bishops are married and its leading archbishop has been married twice. “Therefore he is not in the position to be accepted as a bishop” [This is a true obstacle, but the status of the TAC bishops has not been addressed by either side yet. The TAC so far has been docile and willing to submit itself to the Holy See - though the issue of the married bishops is a true problem, we ought not to throw obstacles out prematurely before even the first steps have been taken. It is as if Msgr. Langham has already decided that there can be no union and is trying to bring out all the reasons why it couldn't possibly work. Let's instead get the TAC to the table, get all parties to agree that union is desirable and then work out the details after we have already agreed on a common goal] .

According to SIR, he also noted that TAC members are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. “They are not true Anglicans,” he argued. “They are not recognized by the Anglican Communion. Accordingly, we do not know what their status is” [Pause. I have never heard that they are "not true Anglicans." I can accept that within the Anglican Communion they may have an irregular status, but that is not the same as saying they are not true Anglicans, just like nobody says the SSPX are not true Catholics, despite their canonical status. But a more fundamental question for me is this: Who cares whether they are recognized by the Anglican Communion? We are discussing union with Rome, not union with Canterbury. Is Msgr. Langham saying that we can't accept Anglican converts unless they are good Anglicans first? Well, if they were good Anglicans they wouldn't want to be Catholics! And why should they want the recognition of Canterbury, which also recognizes homosexuality, women's ordination and a host of other abominations? Who gives a damn whether they are in union with Canterbury or not].

The TAC’s admission into the Catholic Church will raise “difficulties” for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion, “which is why we must be very cautious and prudent,” he said [Okay, now I see what his real problem is: he is afraid of offending mainstream Anglicans by admitting the TAC, pure and simple. He'd rather turn away hundreds of thousands of humble and willing persons desiring union with the true Church in order to maintain a position of "fruitful dialogue" with the liberal Anglican Communion].

Earlier reports had indicated that the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has recommended that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) be given a personal prelature if talks between the TAC and the Vatican succeed. An announcement reportedly could be made after Easter this year."

Well, it seems obvious that this is the tired old (and by old I mean new, post-conciliar) view of ecumenism: an ecumenism that is based not on conversions and returning to Rome but to maintaining an amiable and meaningless state of perpetual dialogue at any cost, even at the cost of denying people who want to come into the Church the means to do so. It reminds me of the old story Dr. Hahn used to tell about the Catholic priest who told him when he wanted to convert that the Church since Vatican II thought the best way for Christians to serve God was to remain in their own respective denominations.

Look how circular this reasoning is: the point of ecumenism is for all Christians to be one. To accomplish this, we need endless dialogue. This dialogue has actually led some (TAC) to desire to bring about this oneness in a formal, visible union. But that union might upset the dialogue with Canterbury, therefore the idea is full of "difficulties" and ought to be discouraged. Why? Because it might hinder dialogue. And why do we dialogue? So that all Christians may be one. It is the insanity of valuing the dialogue and the means over the goal and the ends: return to visible communion with Rome.

I hope those in the CDF who are working on this take a more intelligent view than this. If we really believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church in which all the means of grace are found given by Christ Himself, then I can't see one plausible reason to turn away people willing to convert en masse just because of the lame excuses that they are "so many" or that it will present "difficulties" for Rowan Williams. If we really believe what we profess, we should be dragging souls aboard as if this were the one Ark that could save them from the floods of the world - which it is. To do otherwise is, to use a vulgar colloquialism from my teenage years, freakin' retarded.

Full Anglican Communion soon?

A (non) ordination being carried out in the Traditional Anglican Communion. At least they got the aesthetic elements correct!

This certainly has been a tremendous week for ecumenism, and no doubt connected with the Year of St. Paul and last weeks Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The big news today is that the Pope may be set to offer the 400,000 member Traditional Anglican Communion the status of a personal prelature within the Catholic Church. A personal prelature, from my understanding of it, is kind of like a Diocese without boundaries.

Before I say anything else, I want to applaud Benedict XVI for this true gesture of ecumenism. This, together with last week's lifting of the SSPX excommunications and the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum have done more for ecumenism than anything John Paul II ever did. Benedict's ecumenism is rightly focused on what it should be: Christian unity. There is a much clearer point here than whatever garbled messages JP2 was sending with his ecumenical and interreligious actions (Assisi, Koran kissing, etc.), which tended to harm Christian unity rather than promote it because they rightly scandalized orthodox Catholics and Protestants alike.

Certain members of the Traditional Anglican Communion had hoped that the Pope would make the TAC a 28th rite within the Catholic Church, but left the matter entirely up to the Pope's discretion. They signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, requested full union and left it up to the Pope to determine the terms. This humility, by the way, should be an example to the SSPX, who ought to remember Jesus' words to the Pharisees that "Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of Heaven before you." I know it is rough speech, but it is pertinent: here we have Anglicans, Protestants whose schism with Rome goes back not 20 but 500 years and who are separated from the Pope by a history of violence and ill-will, coming humbly to the Holy See and offering to come back on whatever terms the Holy See sets. If somebody like the Anglican bishops can do this, there is no reason why the SSPX, whose differences with Rome are trivial compared to that of the Anglican Church, cannot follow suit here.

Damian Thompson has speculated rightly that a receiving of the TAC into full communion would cause a greater influx of other Anglicans into the fold as well, leaving only the most liberal and wacked out elements of the Anglican Communion on their own, where they will probably go off into New Age obscurity or vanish away like the Old Catholics. If the Pope and the TAC reach this agreement, we may see the beginning of the end of Anglicanism, at least in its historic form.

There are several difficulties which I and others have speculated on, however. The biggest ones being:

Married Bishops: While there is a precedent for accepting married priests in the Roman Catholic Church, what will be done with the TAC's married (non)bishops? Perhaps new priests will have to be elevated to that rank - but will the TAC bishops be willing to resign their office as the price of communion?

Holy Orders: More fundamental is the issue of Holy Orders: none of the TAC, priest or bishop, have valid Holy Orders (unless they are among the few who sought ordination by Eastern Orthodox bishops, which would have to be examined on a case by case basis). In April 2007 the TAC bishops signed the Catechism on the altar of Marian shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, indicating that they agreed to everything the Church teaches. Will they also agree that their own ordinations are invalid? If they really are willing to come back on any terms the Holy See proposes, then ordinations of all its priests and bishops would be necessary-but even in my wildest dreams I can't imagine any Anglicans en masse admitting that their orders are invalid.

As a scholar of the Tudor era, a devotee of St. Thomas More and a lover of the beautiful English Catholic tradition, I think this is the most exciting news I have heard out of the Vatican since Summorum Pontificum. Let us pray, pray, pray for the full union of the TAC and Rome, and thank God for Pope Benedict XVI who, while he may not be as media savvy as JP2, certainly knows how to hunker down and get stuff done.

See Damian Thompson's article on the matter.

Anglican Communion

On July 31st, Cardinal Kasper was invited to give a talk at the Anglican Lambeth Conference regarding issues surrounding the Anglican communion as it pertained to the ecumenical dialogue between Rome and Canterbury, especially in light of the recent fragmentation of the Anglican community over women's (non) ordination to the episcopate and acceptance of homosexuality.

I think Cardinal Kasper is a mixed bag. He often (mostly) makes me want to jump up and down and pull my hair out while I read what he says, but other times he can be pretty insightful. His address at Lambeth is the same way. One the positive side, he has a very interesting observation about what it means to "be in communion." For many Christians, and modern Catholics, too, to be in communion tends to have a humanist-grounded perspective that unity means simple unity among people. We see this in the Catholic Church with all the social justice influenced prayers and songs about all people getting together in unity, overcoming barriers, tearing down walls, blah blah blah.

In the ecumenical sense, too often unity is reduced to merely being in legal communion with the Bishop of Rome. Don't get me wrong, this aspect of unity is essential. As St. Cyprian said, Rome is the See "from which priestly unity takes its source." But being in legal communion with Rome does not exhaust the meaning of unity and falls short of the Scriptural meaning of unity (shalom), or the patristic notion. Cardinal Kasper points out to the Anglicans that an approach of "what is the lowest common denominator we can reach to get into visible communion" is not what Christ envisions when He speaks of the Church being one.

Rather, because the Church transcends time and includes all of the saints and angels, one must also be in communion with them as well, not just in the intellectual confession of belief in the communion of saints, but in being in active communion with the tradition of the faith. He noticed that Anglicanism has tended to focus on the practical aspect of keeping together its visible communion while ignoring what it is they are all attempting to commune around:

"While Anglican provinces have a responsibility towards each other and towards the maintenance of communion, a communion rooted in the Scriptures, considerably little attention is given to the importance of being in communion with the faith of the Church through the ages.”

Kasper means this in relation to the Anglican communion's shifting on issues of women's ordination and homosexual leadership in their church. I think it is a poignant observation: usually, we speak of communion with reference to persons, being in communion with the pope or the bishop. Kasper points out that all of the people who are in communion are in that state because of their common acceptance of the faith of the Church throughout the ages. In order to truly be in communion with any persons within the Church, we must be in communion with the historical faith of the Church. In all the efforts of the Anglican communion to hold its disintergrating mass together, perhaps they need to stop and ask why they are trying to hold themselves together and what is their principle of unity?

Of course, it is amusing from a Traditionalist point of view to hear Cardinal Kasper talking about the historic faith! Especially when he makes such comments about tradition, as in the following statement to the Anglicans on the Catholic position on female ordination:

"The Catholic Church finds herself bound by the will of Jesus Christ and does not feel free to establish a new tradition alien to the tradition of the Church of all ages."

It's great to see that he is so zealous to uphold the tradition of all ages! Let's see him apply that principle to his talks with the Jews, and then I'll be happy.

His talk is also the occasion of some mind-blowing comments, like this one:

"It is our overwhelming desire that the Anglican Communion stays together, rooted in the historic faith which our dialogue and relations over four decades have led us to believe that we share to a large degree."

The Anglican communion is "rooted in the historic faith"? Even if Anglicanism went back to its most "Catholic" form, that of the Caroline divines of the mid 1600's, it would still not be historic Christianity, most obviously because they have no Apostolic Succession (oh yeah, and all the heresy, the stuff about Purgatory being a "Romish fable" and all that). And why, when many other Catholic commentators are speculating that the divisions within Angicanism could lead to a widespread return of Anglicans to Rome, does Kasper say he wishes the communion to stay together? Probably so as not to offend them, which is of course the Prime Directive of modern ecumenism.

I'd say that this is a wonderful, rare and unique moment within the relations between Rome and Canterbury. The Anglicans seem to be looking to Rome for leadership, and we ought not to throw this opportunity away. The depth of this crisis is seen in the puzzling question posed to Cardinal Kasper by Rowan Williams several months back: "What kind of Anglicanism do you want?" Imagine an Anglican clergyman asking a Catholic Cardinal what type of Anglicanism he wants to see! Anglicanism cannot come closer to Rome on its current path. With the ordination of women to the episcopate, as Kasper told them, "It now seems that full visible communion as the aim of our dialogue has receded further." The Anglican identity is torn at its very heart, and nobody, not even Dr. Williams, knows how it will (or should) re-emerge.

Read the full text of Kasper's talk here.

Interreligious Dialogue: A Case Study of the Columban Missions

I have been meaning to post on this for a long while, but have been putting it off because I was waiting until I had enough time to donate to making this post as coherent and academic as possible (unlike many of my posts tend to be!). As always, I remember that I am nobody, and that I do not claim my opinion has any authority that anyone is bound to agree with. And I don't want to fool myself into thinking my blog is so serious and vital to the life of the Church that I can't possibly take any criticism about it or myself; but nevertheless, I try to do as good a job as I can here with my limited time and I thank you all for your patronage. One day, when I am no longer under the employment of the Church, I will "come out" and reveal my full identity.

There is a very important point regarding the Catholic interreligious dialogue movement that I think needs to be stressed, because it is too often neglected in mainstream Catholicism and sometimes even denied. It is this:

When persons in the hierarchy make statements or actions touching upon interreligious dialogue, regardless of their intentions or the goodness of their own deeds, they have a responsibility to be cognizant of how their deeds will be perceived by Catholics at large, who may not have the same degree of precision in theological understanding that they do.

Back in November, 2007 I received an issue of the Columban Mission magazine (the publication of the Missionary Society of St. Columban) titled "Interfaith Dialogue: Tolerance, Understanding & Learning Through Words & Actions." The cover was decorated with symbols of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. I knew right away from the cover what it would be like, and I was not mistaken. I am not going to bother delving into all the horror stories about priests praying from the Koran, Catholics attending Hindu worship meetings, participating in Ramandan etc (though we'll get into some of them). We all know that these things are the reality of the farce that is called Catholic "missionary" activity. But my point is to show, through some citations fromt his magazine, how despite the fact that John Paul II may have had great intentions at Assisi and how he did not explicitly embrace pagan religions, that is how it is widely being perceived, especially in the mission field.

In the introduction to this issue, Fr. T.P. Reynolds, president of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, writes on the contrast between Catholic views of non-Christians in the early 20th century and today. He says of his own order, the Columban Missionaries, that "like most Christian missionaries, we still viewed Asian non-Christians as "pagans" who had to be Christianized" (pg 3). This view is cast aside as being old-fashioned, and in its place Fr. Reynolds trumpets the declaration of Vatican II: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions."

We know, however, that there is no essential contradiction between the "old" view of converting pagans, and the Vatican II declaration that the Church denies nothing true in other religions. But Fr. Reynolds asserts that there is a discontinuity and says quite plainly that "things have changed" (ibid). In the old days,we thought X, now we think Y. This is the theology of rupture at work, and clearly Vatican II is not being interpreted properly if it is being interpreted in this manner. But where did Fr. Reynolds learn to interpret interreligious dialogue in this way? He specifically cites John Paul II: "Pope John Paul II taught us, at Assisi, how to pray together" (ibid). He then goes on to state how the articles in this issue of the magazinbe are examples of the Columban Missionaries "complying with Rome's demands." So, let's see what he thinks it means to "comply" with Rome's idea of interreligious dialogue.

Following Fr. Reynold's article, we have an article entitled "A Concurrence of Civilizations." In this article, Fr. Paul Glynn, the author, explains how modern missionary work is not about converting anybody to the Faith, but about training "young Christians and Muslims to become peacemakers in their local communities" (pg. 6). And how is this done?

"This normally consists of eight-day, live-in workshops where we explore issues of prejudice and discrimination through games, drama, role play and small-group discussions. We lead the young people in a process of self-discovery and rediscovery of the richness of their own religious traditions: Christianity and Islam" (ibid)."

Much has been made by Traditionalists about the distinction between praying together and coming together to pray, which has been raised because of Assisi. Defenders of Assisi assert that in calling leaders of other religions together to pray, John Paul II was not meaning to insinuate that all religions prayed to the same God, nor was he trying to give the impression that all religions were equally valid. I don't deny that he did not intend to do this. But how do the missionaries take it? Do these missionaries believe and teach that all religions pray to the same God? Fr. Glynn continues:

We firmly believe that a true and lasting peace must begin from the individual young people who have allowed their hearts to be touched and their minds to be inspired by the love and mercy of God/Allah (ibid).

That is exactly how God is referred to in the text. "God/Allah." Remember now, in the introduction, Fr. Reynolds said that these stories were examples of the Columbans "complying with Rome's demands," which can only mean one thing: he, and the Columbans, are under the impression that this kind of syncretism is what Rome and the Pope are commanding! As he said, "John Paul II taught us, at Assisi."

I don't think even the most ardent defenders of John Paul and Assisi would go so far as to say that it is acceptable that a priest refer to the Trinity as "God/Allah." They are not the same God: God is a Trinity of Persons Who is all good and all perfect, while Allah is at best a remnant of pre-Islamic moon-worship, at worst a demon of hell. But, perhaps Fr. Glynn, who made the above statement, was just an isolated case. Perhaps the rest of the Columbans are not on the same page?

The next article is by the Superior General of the Columbans, Fr. Tommy Murphy (pictured in the magazine wearing a blue, button-up shirt with no sign that he is a religious order priest whatsoever, let alone a Superior General). It is entitled "An Urgent Need: Engaging Other Faiths." The subtitle is "The Columban Superior General says understanding other religions helps us better understand God." He goes on to laud the beliefs of other religions, saying, "They are very religious: they are very clear about the bigger issues" (pg. 7), as if to be "religious" was in and of itself salvific. There is an interesting point in the article when he is asked, "How do you understand Catholic missionary work today?" He thinks about it for a moment and responds, "I see mission as primarily trying to engage people and trying to understand what God is doing in the world."

Fr. Murphy then goes on to deny de fide dogma and he cites Vatican II as his justification:

"In the old days, there seemed to be no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, we realize that such great religions are valid paths to salvation for their adherents, as Vatican II taught us. So, that means that God is doing something very good in these religious traditions" (ibid).

This is not some priest, or some uneducated layman: this is the Superior General of the entire Order of Columban Missionary Priests, and he is under the misguided notion that Vatican II teaches that all religions are paths to salvation! Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Salus is indeeed Church dogma. It has always been believed, but was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in these words:"The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved." This can be found in denzinger 430, linked on the sidebar. A more famous statement of this doctrine is in Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam (1302), which says: "It is absolutely necessary for every living creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation." This teaching was restated by Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Though one may not find the principle in such clear cut terms in the Vatican II documents (although Lumen Gentium does teach this as well), it is certaibly a de fide dogma of the Church, though of course we do not interpret it in the Feenyite sense.

Fr. Tommy Murphy, Superior General of the Columbans

Further on in this issue of the Columban Mission, we see some articles about different concrete ways that Muslims and Christians are being encouraged to come together to be "peacemakers." One story discusses a missionary priest visiting a Muslim family during Ramadan. Did he make any attempt to lead them to Christ? Let's read:

"On the last day of Ramandan, called the Eid al-Fitr, Columban Father Pat McCaffrey and I joined the family for its wonderful celebration. Fr. Pat, who spent 20 years in Pakistan, greeted them in the Urdu language...They offered us Indian miT-Thai (sweets) and the traditional samay (a noodle dish). Fr. Pat read aloud a souvenir program about Ramandan written in Urdu and said the opening verse of the Quran. They were awed, and to a certain extent, shocked" (pg. 10).

As we should be! Clearly, there is a misunderstanding about what interreligious dialogue is: but my very point with this post is that these misunderstandings were made worse by the actions of John Paul II and the statements of persons in the post-V2 Church (Cardinal Kasper). Fr. Pat McCaffrey seems to understand that here may be a bit of confusion on this issue, and tries to clear it up in another article called "Together to Pray, But Not Praying Together" (whatever that means). In this piece, he writes about interfaith meetins in Fiji:

"Since Pope John Paul II's charismatic invitation in 1987 to all faith leaders in Assisi to pray for peace, the Catholic Church has made special efforts to promote interfath prayer for peace...The distinction is made that we come together to pray, but we do not pray together. At first blush, this may seem to be nothing more than wordplay [I'll say!]. But it does express a truth: it is important to come together to pray, but it is equally important that we do not reduce our beliefs to a common denominator in prayer, thereby concealing elements of our faith [despite the fact that this is exactly what happens] ...at each meeting, a theme is chosen for next month's prayer gathering. Each faith community is requested to choose a reading from their respective scriptures and forward this to the coordinator who distributes copies of the readings to everyone who attends...The meeting begins with a common interfaith prayer [praying in common?]. Each faith community shares a reading from their sacred scriptures. This may be a reading, hymn or bhajan (a Hindu devotional song) [devotional song to whom? to which of their 330 million gods?]. The prayer time ends with a common prayer. Then we can reflect on what we have accomplished" (pg. 11).

When we entertain the farce of praying with pagans (and I include Assisi in this), there are only a two possibilities of what is going on: either we are praying to the same god, or we are encouraging them to pray to their own false gods. Either:

(1) We are asserting that our gods are actually one and the same (syncretism). If this were the case, it would be a travesty. However, most people acknowledge that this was not what was going on explicitly (but obviously, as the Columban Missionaries exemplify, people think this was what happened).

(2) If we are not asserting that our gods are the same, then by praying in common we must be encouraging them to pray to their own false gods. If this is the case, it is a mortal sin. Remember a little something from Tradition called "Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin?"

It is always a mortal sin to pray to a false god (against the First Commandment). Granted, there may be varying levels of culpability, but it is always sinful in and of itself. If this is always a sin, what do we do if we encourage them to pray to these false gods? Now, what happens when someone gets together with pagans and encourages them to pray to their false gods for something like world peace? Let's look at the nine ways:

By counsel (yep, guilty of that, because we invite them together and counsel them to pray to their false gods)
By command (I guess we wouldn't be guilty of that, since no one commanded them to pray to their demons)
By consent (definitely we'd be guilty of consent, because it seems to be the idea of the Catholic party in mosty of these situations)
By provocation (again, guilty, because by providing the means, the location and the events, Catholics who participate in these interfaith travesties provoke pagans to further their idolatry)
By praise or flattery (definitely, because by consistently praising "what is true" in non-Christian religions, we praise and flatter them into remaining mired in false worship)
By concealment (yes, because these events conceal the anti-Christian dogmas and practices of these pagans and focus only on the elusive similarities, like a desire for "peace")
By partaking (guilty, because you partake by being there and encouraging it)
By silence (guilty again, because nobody participating says one word to these pagans about their need to convert and come to Christ)
By defense of the ill done (absolutely guilty, because despite all of the outrages like the ones committed by the Columbans, people still persist in defending this defunct and false vision of interreligious dialogue)

And in the end, do the Columban Missions have any success in making any converts? And if so, what types of converts are they making? When asked about the fruits of his 28 years in the mission field, Fr. Robert McCulloch says, "Year by year, I have come to understand that the real issue is to serve the love of God, not to look at what I have in my hand or what I can count" (pg. 14). This is a polite way of saying, "I haven't made any converts at all in my 28 years." Is this really surprising given the type of "missionary activity" they are engaging in?

Sr. Elizabeth Moran, in an article entitled "An Open Window For All Faiths," explains the difference between pre and post Vatican II missionary work with regards to the ecumenical movement:

"Forty years ago, the leaders of the Catholic Church, gathered at the Second Vatican Council, authorized a document called Unitatis Redintegratio, which clearly welcomed the ecumenical movement as integral to the Church's being and pastoral activity. This overturned much of the narrow Counter-Reformation outlook of the Church" (pg. 18-19).

And what are the issues that various Christians, and non-Christians, are called to come together on? "Creation issues that concern us all: world debt, trade legislation, migration, climate change, human rights, and peace issues," says Amy Woolam-Echeverria, whose article "Forward Toward Justice & Peace" winds up this issue of the Columban Mission(pg. 20). These interfaith gatherings inevitably end up focusing on worldly, temporal issues and wind up treating them as if they supercede the theological truths of the Faith. "Sure, we disagree on the nature of God, how one attains salvation, what happens after death, etc. But we all believe there should be world peace, and so we have much more in common!" This makes the supernatural truths of revelation subordinate to merely worldly goods and tends toward the heresy of activism.

It is clear from all of these highlights that these people involved in the interreligious dialogue movement have a gross misunderstanding of what the Church's call to meet people where they are really means. "But," you will object, "people are always misunderstanding Catholicism! Protestants accuse us of worshipping Mary and call the Mass worship of Isis, Horus and Set. We are going to be misunderstood!"

Well, of course we are going to be misunderstood, but here is the essential difference with the above examples and the examples afforded us by the Columban Mission: if we are misunderstood for doing things right, shame on those who misunderstand! But, if we are misunderstood because we are doing things wrong, shame on us! The reason this is being misunderstood and confused by people is because Vatican II and John Paul II have provided ample grounds for confusion to reign. As Fr. Reynolds said, "Pope John Paul II taught us."

Everybody has a responsibility to concern themself not only with their actions, but how their actions might be perceived by others. Can John Paul's interfaith prayer at Assisi be good and prudent if it is yielding these kinds of fruits? And would anyone be so bold as to say that the type of missionary work described above is the type that the Holy Spirit desires? People who engage in interfaith meetings and prayers are even more responsible for their actions if they are in positions of authority, and ought to take extra special care that no one could possibly level the charge of syncretism against them with any type of seriousness. As St. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Avoid every appearance of evil."

Affirming Hindus and Muslims where they are is not good missionary work. It is in fact from the pits of hell. Sure, they may love you now, but how will they feel about you when they are cast out because you spent all your time with them talking about migration issues, trade legislation and climate change and spent absolutely no effort (and don't delude yourself: they are making no effort) at converting these people? That is not true charity, but love of the world and the world's ways. And, "He who loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:14).

The New Doctrinal Note on Evangelization

Looks like evangelization and ecumenism are in the headlines a lot recently! Well, after reading Cardinal Dulles' dull suggestion (pun intentional) that we practice evangelization by asking Protestants and Orthodox to preach to us, and having heard from a Southern Baptist about what weak evangelizers Catholics are, I was very delighted to hear some sound advice from the good ole Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding evangelization and the Church's mission ad gentes. I will cite the entire document below (though you can find it at this link as well). By the way, the document seems to be a summary of the actual document, of which I have as of yet not been able to find a copy of online.

DOCTRINAL NOTE ON SOME ASPECTS OF EVANGELIZATION
SUMMARY POINTS

I. Introduction

1. The Doctrinal Note is devoted principally to an exposition of the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Christian mission of evangelization, which is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the word "Gospel" translates "evangelion" in the Greek New Testament. "Jesus Christ was sent by the Father to proclaim the Gospel, calling all people to conversion and faith. ‘Go out into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mk 16,15)." [n. 1]

2. The Doctrinal Note cites Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter "The Mission of the Redeemer" in recalling that "‘Every person has the right to hear the Good News [Gospel] of the God who reveals and gives himself in Christ, so that each one can live out in its fullness his or her proper calling.’ This right implies the corresponding duty to evangelize." [n. 2] [These first two paragraphs are excellent: first, they remind us that our mission to evangelize comes straight from Christ, and that consequently, we all share in this sacred duty, because everybody has the right to hear the truth and to be saved, in keeping with God's will]

3. Today there is "a growing confusion" about the Church’s missionary mandate. Some think "that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom," suggesting that it is enough to invite people "to act according to their consciences", or to "become more human or more faithful to their own religion" [like Cardinal Dulles] , or "to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity" [like the USCCB], without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. [This is great. Conversion to Christ "and the Catholic faith" is the end goal of all evangelism. Anything else will not suffice]

Others have argued that conversion to Christ should not be promoted because it is possible for people to be saved without explicit faith in Christ or formal incorporation in the Church [This misunderstanding is due in part to the Magisterium's own weakness when dealing with extra ecclesiam nulla salus; everytime the doctrine is brought up, they are quick to point out that elements of truth exist in other religions,too. How can this cause anything but misunderstanding?]. Because "of these problems, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to public the present Note." [n. 3]

II. Some Anthropological Implications

4. While some forms of agnosticism and relativism deny the human capacity for truth, in fact human freedom cannot be separated from its reference to truth. Human beings are given intellect and will by God that they might come to know and love what is true and good. The ultimate fulfillment of the vocation of the human person is found in accepting the revelation of God in Christ as proclaimed by the Church [Right. All people, by their nature, have a duty to seek truth].

5. This search for truth cannot be accomplished entirely on one’s own, but inevitably involves help from others and trust in knowledge that one receives from others. Thus, teaching and entering into dialogue to lead someone in freedom to know and to love Christ [This is what I have always wanted to hear! Yes, we need dialogue, but to what end? "To lead someone in freddom to know and to love Christ" ] is not inappropriate encroachment on human freedom, "but rather a legitimate endeavor and a service capable of making human relationships more fruitful." [n. 5] [ Knowing Christ will make everybody's lives better]

6. The communication of truths so that they might be accepted by others is also in harmony with the natural human desire to have others share in one’s own goods, which for Catholics includes the gift of faith in Jesus Christ. Members of the Church naturally desire to share with others the faith that has been freely given to them [or at least they ought to!].

7. Through evangelization, cultures are positively affected by the truth of the Gospel. Likewise, through evangelization, members of the Catholic Church open themselves to receiving the gifts of other traditions and cultures, for "Every encounter with another person or culture is capable of revealing potentialities of the Gospel which hitherto may not have been fully explicit and which will enrich the life of Christians and the Church." [n. 6]

8. Any approach to dialogue such as coercion or improper enticement that fails to respect the dignity and religious freedom of the partners in that dialogue has no place in Christian evangelization.

III. Some Ecclesiological Implications

9. "Since the day of Pentecost … the Gospel, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is proclaimed to all people so that they might believe and become disciples of Christ and members of his Church." "Conversion" is a "change in thinking and of acting," expressing our new life in Christ; it is an ongoing dimension of Christian life.

10. For Christian evangelization, "the incorporation of new members into the Church is not the expansion of a power-group, but rather entrance into the network of friendship with Christ which connects heaven and earth, different continents and ages." In this sense, then, "the Church is the bearer of the presence of God and thus the instrument of the true humanization of man and the world." (n. 9) [Amen. It is about knowing a Person, a Person who happens to be God]

11. The Doctrinal Note cites the Second Vatican Council’s "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) to say that respect for religious freedom and its promotion "must not in any way make us indifferent towards truth and goodness. Indeed, love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves." [n.10] This mission of love must be accomplished by both proclamation of the word and witness of life. "Above all, the witness of holiness is necessary, if the light of truth is to reach all human beings [Perhaps the lack of success in the mission field is due to the lack of truly holy religious men and women to bear witness and, if necessary, die for the Faith]. If the word is contradicted by behavior, its acceptance will be difficult." On the other hand, citing Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, the Note says that "even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run, if it is not explained, justified… and made explicit by a clear und unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus." [n. 11]

IV. Some Ecumenical Implications

12. The CDF document points out the important role of ecumenism in the Church’s mission of evangelization. Christian divisions can seriously compromise the credibility of the Church’s evangelizing mission [that's an understatement!]. The more ecumenism brings about greater unity among Christians, the more effective evangelization will be.

13. When Catholic evangelization takes place in a country where other Christians live, Catholics must take care to carry out their mission with "both true respect for the tradition and spiritual riches of such countries as well as a sincere spirit of cooperation." Evangelization proceeds by dialogue, not proselytism. With non-Catholic Christians, Catholics must enter into a respectful dialogue of charity and truth, a dialogue which is not only an exchange of ideals, but also of gifts, in order that the fullness of the means of salvation can be offered to one’s partners in dialogue. In this way, they are led to an ever deeper conversion to Christ.

"In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term." [n. 12] [Amen! Amen! Amen! This reminds me of the story of Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion, where the priest told him the best way he could serve God was to go back and be a good Presbyterian. It is the will of the Holy Spirit that people become Catholic!]

V. Conclusion

14. The Doctrinal Note recalls that the missionary mandate belongs to the very nature of the Church [i.e., the Church cannot not evangelize. Sorry, Russian Orthodox Church!]. In this regard it cites Pope Benedict XVI: "The proclamation of and witness to the Gospel are the first service that Christians can render to every person and the entire human race, called as they are to communicate to all God’s love, which was fully manifested in Jesus Christ, the one Redeemer of the world." Its concluding sentence contains a quotation from Pope Benedict’s first Encyclical Letter "Deus caritas est": "The love which comes from God unites us to him and ‘makes us a we which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28)’."

A Baptist's Sadly Relevant Critique of Catholic Wimpiness

That's right, Joe the Baptist, not John. The following is a very true but very sad note left from a Baptist named Joe Bailey on the Zenit site this Saturday. Just read this over and think about it for a few moments; if Baptists understand this, why can't we?

I am a Southern Baptist, but I frequent the ZENIT site and do so in part out of curiosity concerning ecumenism and Catholic-Baptist relations. Now what I am about to write is not done to berate Catholicism, but to state what appears to an "outsider looking in."

For years now, I have been fascinated as to why lay Catholics seem unable to fulfill the mandate of say, I Peter 3:15 [Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope]. There seems to be a lack of "clear conviction" on the part of many, and an almost "defeatist and I-am-sorry-that-I-am-a-Catholic" approach to defending their faith/beliefs. This should not be so if they believe in the authority of Catholicism that is often thrown up as a defense in regards to religious/theological discussions with Protestants.

I wonder if it would not behoove Catholicism to do a better job of grounding their believers in the Scripture as much as Tradition, and emboldening them in their expression and sincerity of faith?

Joseph Bailey

Wow! He really said it all. I have noticed the same thing when talking to Catholics in the course of my work with the Church. Catholics are consistently some of the worst evangelizers among all branches of Christianity, both because of lack of motivation and lack of the right intellectual foundation to actually carry out the work of evangelization.

This Mr. Bailey suggests we ground our people more in Scripture and less in Tradition; I can certainly agree with the first proposition, but he is wrong in the second. What Catholics need is a better grounding the Scripture interpreted in light of Tradition and, by consequence, a more solid grounding in Tradition itself. The reason so many Catholics have a "defeatist and I-am-sorry-that-I-am-a-Catholic" mentality is because they are cut off from Tradition and therefore (1) Are unable to defend attacks lodged against the Church in the area of her Tradition, (2) have a lack of a clear conviction in the veracity of that Tradition because they themselves are broken off from it.

Even if people don't know it or cannot express it in words, what ails modern Christianity (all pieces of it) is a lack of a sense of mystery and transcendence, rendering all our religious efforts worldly and time-bound. Mystery is brought about by adhering to Tradition, for two reasons. First, the Traditions are set up to focus us on that mystery, and second, Tradition itself has a kind of mysterious character to it. It is something that was there before us and will be there after us and has a sort of transcendence to it that comes partially from its object (worship of God) and partially from its historical longevity that reminds us by-gone days.

If we have no grounding in our Tradition, then how can we hope to have a traditional "Catholic" interpretation of our own Scriptures? If we can't do that, how can we really know what our message is? And how can we spread it to others? We end with Cardinal Dulles' absurd proposition that we just sit around sharing faith experiences with each other and kind of throw the whole conversion thing out the window as old fashioned and unecumenical.

God forbid! If this Baptist can see the truth so clearly, why can't we?

At the Crossroads of Ecumenism

Cardinal Avery Dulles has an interesting article in the latest issue of First Things in which he discusses the ecumenical movement fifty years after the Oberlin Conference of 1957, where the Catholic Church first entered into the ecumenical dialogue with other Christian bodies. He has many pertinent and fascinating things to say about ecumenism, but ultimately I think his conclusion that he draws from his observations is way off.

First, he mentions what everybody interested in ecumenism already knows: that it is scandalous that so many different Christian communities exist. While affirming the truth that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, he makes sure (like a good ecumenist) to mention that there nevertheless exists means of grace and sanctity in other Christian bodies. It seems that anytime anybody says the Catholic Church is the Church, they always feel obligated to "balance" it by pointing out the fact that there exists elements of grace and truth in other denominations. But I digress.

Interesting is his take on why many of our traditional doctrines have been downplayed in the ecumenical movement. He says it is because the Church, since Vatican II, has attempted to use a Protestant method of exegesis in explication of its doctrine. In our anxiousness to show Protestants how like them we are, we started emphasizing the scriptural roots of our faith over the traditional or theological roots. It is not bad to know the scriptural roots; that is a good thing. But what about the doctrines that are not stated explicitly in scripture? Cardinal Dulles says that in dialogue with "Bible only" denominations, these uniquely Catholic doctrines tended to fall into the background. He says (my highlights):

Many of the twentieth-century dialogues have opted to take Scripture, interpreted by the historical-critical method, as their primary norm. This method has worked reasonably well for mainline Protestant churches and for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. But many Christians do not rely on the critical approach to Scripture as normative. Catholics themselves, without rejecting the historical-critical method, profess many doctrines that enjoy little support from Scripture, interpreted in this manner. They draw on allegorical or spiritual exegesis, authenticated by the sense of the faithful and long-standing theological tradition. As a consequence, certain Catholic doctrines, such as papal primacy, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and purgatory, have been banished to the sidelines. Unable to cope with doctrines such as these, the dialogues have treated them as an ecumenical embarrassment.

It is interesting that Cardinal Dulles identifies this kind of "scripture-only" emphasis as the historical-critical method, that same nefarious method that was so soundly denounced by Pius IX and St. Pius X. But since Vatican II, Cardinal Dulles says that it has "worked reasonably well." But nevertheless, this method has led to our most cherished doctrines being "banished" as an "ecumenical embarrassment." Is that working reasonably well?

Cardinal Dulles says that traditional ecumenism, until now, has revolved around a "convergence" method. This simply means finding out that we all really believe the same thing about something and the perceived differences are only matters of semantics and terminology. He cites the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification as an example. By ecumenical convergence, denominations come together with the Church on every issue that they can possibly agree upon: pro-Life issues, the inerrancy of Scripture, the immorality of certain acts, etc.

However, the Cardinal rightly points out that this can only take you so far. Inevitably, you are going to run out of things that can be agreed upon and will be left with only the differences, stark and immovable. Clearly, mere "convergence" cannot deal with these obstacles. A new method is needed at this point. Now, to any Traditionalist Catholic, the idea that we attempt to convert the other party immediately comes to mind. We have exhausted every means of convergence, now comes the time to proclaim why our interpretation of Revelation is proper and what is lacking in the doctrines of the other communities. This is the place we are at with the ecumenical movement today, a kind of ecumenical crossroads. But does the Cardinal propose that we now attempt to convert the other party? Not at all. He proposes "deeper conversation" and a sharing of experiences:

[T]o surmount the remaining barriers we need a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II’s idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an “exchange of gifts.”

In other words, we are going to transfer the ecumenical dialogue onto a completely subjective plane. Instead of discussing or debating the merits of certain dogmas, we are just going to talk about what they mean to us and how they make us feel. Don't laugh! That's really what he means. Listen to this:

With this mentality, Catholics would want to hear from the churches of the Reformation the reasons they have for speaking as they do of Christ alone, Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith alone, while Catholics tend to speak of Christ and the Church, Scripture and tradition, grace and cooperation, faith and works. We would want to learn from them how to make better use of the laity as sharers in the priesthood of the whole People of God. We would want to hear from evangelicals about their experience of conversion and from Pentecostals about perceiving the free action of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Orthodox would have much to tell about liturgical piety, holy tradition, sacred images, and synodical styles of polity.

In other words, we are going to ask them to preach to us! That is what is boils down to. We are going to ask them to help us "learn from them" and teach us "about their experience." Grr..Nowhere does the Cardinal say they ought to convert. In fact, he only toys with the idea of conversion very tenatively, but makes sure to mention that he does not share the "negative" or "polemical" view of Protestantism that characterised the pre-Vatican II Church. The Cardinal is fully cognizant of his break with tradition here. Listen to his words and note how they exemplify a rupture with Catholic Tradition. Pay close attention to his language and to the comparison he draws between then and now:

Vatican II, therefore, represents a sharp turn away from the purely negative evaluation of non-Catholic Christianity that was characteristic of the previous three centuries...Regarding the ecclesial status of non-Catholic Christians, Pius XII had taught as late as 1943 that they could not be true members of the Church because the Body of Christ was identical with the Catholic Church [what does he mean by saying "as late as 1943?" This seems to imply that this teaching is no longer true]. Such Christians could not belong to the body except by virtue of some implicit desire, which would give them a relation that fell short of true incorporation. From a different point of view, Vatican II taught that every valid baptism incorporates the recipient into the crucified and glorified Christ, and that all baptized Christians were to some extent in communion with the Catholic Church...Relying on the new ecclesiology of communion, Catholic ecumenists now perceived their task as a movement from lesser to greater degrees of communion. All who believed in Christ and were baptized in his name already possessed a certain imperfect communion, which could be recognized, celebrated, and deepened.

So, while the three previous centuries, in which the Church had a "purely negative evaluation" of Protestantism, we are now going to suddenly adopt a "new ecclesiology of communion" in which the divisions in Christianity that the Cardinal just finished saying were scandalous are to be "celebrated." So, what used to be viewed as a definite negative (division in Christendom) as now going to be celebrated as a positive good and a source of mutual enrichment (*barf*).

The end goal of any ecumenism ought to be reconciling non-Catholics into full communion with the Church, to make Catholics out of them. Does Cardinal Dulles think his proposal of "sharing experiences" will actually work in the end? That is the most amusing thing. He does not even think his proposed program will work. He says:

The process of growth through mutual attestation will probably never reach its final consummation within historical time, but it can bring palpable results. It can lead the churches to emerge progressively from their present isolation into something more like a harmonious chorus. Enriched by the gifts of others, they can hope to raise their voices together in a single hymn to the glory of the triune God. The result to be sought is unity in diversity.

It's a beautiful image, but unfortunately it is not the scriptural one. Our unity is not to be a unity found in diversity (what kind of double-talk is that anyway?), but a unity based on the unity of the Father with the Son, in which we are "neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." The saddest thing about this is that the Cardinal proposes this new method precisely because he sees the shortcomings of the standard "convergence" method. But he proposes his "growth through mutual attestation" because he fears a return to polemical (i.e., dogmatically based) ecumenical debate that characterized Protestant/Catholic relations in the post-Tridentine period. For him, it is good enough that we come to accept and understand each other, making a "harmonious chorus." This is a far cry from the one sheepfold spoken of by Christ.

And they were scattered, because there was no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. (Ezekiel 34:5)

But is this an acceptable vision of Christian unity? Let's give St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Pope Pius IX the last words:

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever...This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.

The following proposition is condemned in # 17 of the Syllabus of Errors: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."

Click here for the complete text of Cardinal Dulles' article.

Prof. never heard of Unam Sanctam

I just wanted to follow up on Anselm's post from yesterday on the Professor of the history of the Greek churches who claims to have never heard of the famous 1302 bull Unam Sanctam (by the way, is it any coincidence that this blog is called Unam Sanctam Catholicam and that my name on here is Boniface? It is a direct reference to this very bull).

First of all, I think it is horrible that this professor claims to have never heard of the document. If you are any type of Catholic or Orthodox, then you ought to be familiar with the doctrinal, historical and ecumenical issues that exist between the two churches. To be a historian of the Greek churches and yet be unfamiliar with Unam Sanctam is simply inexcusable; it is like a Mariologist saying he never heard of Ineffabilis Deus. I am only a lay theologian, and only an amateur one at that, since my degree was in history. But when I read Anselm's post, even before I got through the whole thing, I just instinctively by virtue of my sensus catholicus thought, "But what about Unam Sanctam, which specifically mentions the Greek churches by name and says that their lack of submission to the pope puts them outside of the flock?" If me, a lay theologian, automatically thought about the bull, I am shocked that a specialist in the history of the Greek churches did not think of it; worse, that he had never heard of it and then declared that it must be wrong automatically (he must have great mental powers to declare something wrong that he never heard of).

The last aspect is particularly troubling since, as Anselm pointed out, the bull was an exercise of ex cathedra infallibility by its use of the formula "We declare, we proclaim, we define..." It is usually taken that only the statement to which the formula is appended is infallible in the ex cathedra sense, but it has always been maintained that bulls/encyclicals represent the teaching authority of the ordinary Magisterium and consequently must be adhered to with divine and Catholic faith in everything that they affirm pertaining to faith and morals. In more concrete theological terms, I would say that the ex cathedra statement in the bull regarding extra ecclesia non salus is ex cathedra dogma, de fide, while the other statements that it makes regarding the Greek churches are sententia fidei proxima, a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that because of its close connection with a truth of revelation cannot be denied without denying revelation itself. The truth of revelation it is connected to is the primacy of the papacy and the necessity of being in union with the Bishop of Rome, as explicated at the end of the bull. The sententia fidei proxima is the conclusion which comes from that; i.e., that the Greek churches, by virtue of their refusal to acknowledge the papal primacy, are therefore not in full union with the Church. You cannot contest the latter without denying the former.

I agree with Anselm's judgment that this Professor's reasoning for saying the Greeks were neither heretics nor schismatics are "nonsense" and "hogwash." I may possibly be persuaded that they are not heretics, but they are certainly schismatic, no doubt about that. If they are not in schism, may I ask what exactly did happen in 1054? If they are not in schism, what was the point of the ecumenical dialogues undertaken in the Councils of Florence and of Lyons? Why the lifting of the excommunications by John Paul II? Why all the regulations for under what circumstances you can receive sacraments in an Orthodox church? Why then, in all the 23 approved rites of the Church, is Greek Orthodox not listed as one? If they are not in schism, why do all these other things exist that clearly point to the fact that they are in schism? Furthermore, professor, if they are not in schism, just what are they? In full communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pontiff of Rome? Just ask any Greek Orthodox patriarch is he is in communion with Rome under the authority of the Pope and see what he says.

One last thought on this. In the 1896 bull of Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae regarding Anglican orders, the Pope came to his judgment on the nullity of Anglican orders by looking at the historical practice of the papacy with regards to Anglican clergyman. Since the popes had always in practice treated Anglican orders as invalid, he came to the conclusion that they therefore were (with some theological treatment on form and intention in sacraments as well). This principle of precedent is how the papacy has traditionally decided how it was going to act in contemporary situations. Now, to the question of whether or not the Greeks are in schism, we look only to how the Church has always in practice treated the Greek Churches, and there can be no doubt that the traditional praxis of the Church establishes beyond all doubt the reality of the schism.

In Leo XIII's day, ecumenism and reunion were brought about by overcoming obstacles and objections to arrive at the truth. Nowadays it is brought about by denying that there are any obstacles to begin with.

Unam Sanctam mentioned in recent lecture in Austria!

No, not the blog, the papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. Two nights ago (Feast of St. Nicholas), the International Theological Institute in Austria hosted a lecture by Prof. Christoph Suttner, one of the world's leading historians of the Greek churches.

Although it will force me to make gross simplifications of all he had to say, I'm going to keep this very short. Bascially, he said that the Orthodox are neither schismatics nor heretics.

1. There is no schism because Vatican II said that wherever the Eucharist is celebrated there is a true particular church. If they are true particular churches then they are in the one Church of Christ, hence no schism.

2. Furthermore, if they are true churches, and the church is infallible, then they can't be heretics, and you are a heretic if you say they are.

To the first I reply: Nonsense. Although Vatican II does recognize Orthodox churches as true particular churches, the whole point is that their union is imperfect inasmuch as they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. To the extent that they are true churches they are already Catholic; to the extent that they refuse obedience to Rome they are in schism.

To the second I reply: Hogwash. Infallibility certainly does not apply to particular churches. On this account even the Arians wouldn't be heretics. The only real leg that he had left to stand on after a few pointed questions is the fact that the Orthodox church hasn't really taught anything ever since the Council of Florence (1439) where they agreed to the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, the legitimacy of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope. This is the last official Orthodox teaching because the emperor (Caesaropapism was always a problem in the East) was eliminated in 1453 when Constantinople was taken by the Turk. Well and good, but if the denial of a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church (such as the Filioque clause or the Immaculate Conception) doesn't make for heresy nothing does.

In the question period following the lecture one of the students present raised on objection to the Prof.'s lecture, referencing the following from Unam Sanctam: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

Believe it or not, the Prof's answer was that he had never heard of the document, but if it really said what is says he is sure it is simply wrong. What is also interesting in this connection though is that the words that imply the exercise of infallibility, "We declare, we proclaim, we define..." occur at the end of the document with only this following: "...that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Clearly, we have here an infallible statement to the effect of extra ecclesia non salus. My question is, what does this mean for the rest of the document? It seems that it would be hard to argue that what precedes is also infallible (which, of course, does not mean that it must be any less true). I would love to hear some other people's thoughts on this.

Feast of St. Josaphat, Bishop and Martyr

I imagine that it might not be coincidence that my colleague has posted an article out of St. Josaphat's TLM community on the feast day of St. Josaphat according to the 1962 calendar. My wife and I were blessed to hear Mass there regularly before coming here to Austria. As such, I wish a happy patronal feast day to all of our dear friends at St. Josaphat parish in Detroit! We miss you all very much.

St. Josaphat, pray for us! And let us all join our meager prayers to his for the return of the schismatic Greek Churches to the one true Church of Christ founded on St. Peter.

In an almost completely unrelated vein, I stumbled across some words of the Venerable Pope Pius XII (some of which I have read before as I'm sure many of have) that gave me pause. It's not everyday that one encounters such prophetic wisdom.

The words of Pius XII (then Secretary of State of Pius XI) to his friend Jean Guitton as recorded by his biographer Msgr. Roche, Pius XII Devant L’Histoire, pp. 52-53:

Imagine, dear friend, that communism be only the most visible of the means of subversion against the Church and against the tradition of divine revelation, then we will assist at the invasion of all that is spiritual, philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the press, literature, the theatre and religion. I am obsessed by the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucy of Fatima. This obstinacy of the good Lady in front of the dangers which threaten the Church is a divine warning against the suicide represented by the alteration of the faith in its liturgy, its theology, in its soul. I hear all around me innovators who want to dismantle the Holy Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, throw away her ornaments, give her a remorse of her historical past. Well my dear friend, I have the conviction that the Church of Peter must assume her past or she will dig her own grave. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt like Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that his Son is a mere symbol, a philosophy like many others and in the churches Christians will seek in vain the red light where God waits for them, like Magdalen weeping before the empty tomb, 'Where have they taken Him?'

Pope Pius XII, a few days before he died: The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs.

Report on the 3rd European Ecumenical Assembly

The 3rd European Ecumenical Assembly, which met in Subiu, Romania from 4-9 September 2007, adopted as their theme The Light of Christ Shines Upon All. Hope for Renewal and Unity in Europe. One of the participants in this gathering, a Catholic priest, offered a presentation last night, which I was able to attend. He spoke both of his experience at Subiu, and also of his vision of the ecumenical movement in general.

The presentation focused primarily, indeed almost exclusively, on the relationship of the Catholic Church with the schismatic Orthodox Churches of the East. I'll offer just two observations on the presentation. First, I was delighted that he urged the Eastern Catholic Churches united with Rome to cling tenaciously their own unique traditions, to resist the easy path of adopting Roman habits. Second, and more negatively, I am rather uncomfortable (that might be putting it too mildly) with the notion put forward that the Orthodox ought only to be bound to believe, in regards to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, those aspects of the doctrine that developed in the first millennium of the Church. N.B. the de Fide dogma of papal infallibility was solemnly defined only in 1870 by the First Vatican Council's decree Dei Filius.

When the students were offered the opportunity of putting questions to our guest, I asked the following: "What, if any, do you think the significance of Pope Benedict's initiative, which takes effect today, of de-restricting the traditional liturgy of the Latin Church, will be in regards to the Orthodox, who obviously value so highly their own traditional liturgies?"

I was rather disappointed with his answer, although I appreciated the honesty of his initial response. He admitted that it is not something he has much familiarity with, although he would suppose a favorable reaction amongst the Orthodox in general. However, he then went on with the usual characterizations of the Traditional Latin Mass: mumbled prayers in a dead language, old ladies praying the rosary, etc. Ah well, yesterday was still a day for rejoicing in the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and in the liberalization of our beloved rite of Mass.

But it behooves us to glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: in Whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection: by Whom we are saved, and delivered. May God have mercy on us and bless us: may he cause the light of His countenance to shine upon us, and may He have mercy on us.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

The Ecumenical Import of the TLM

Yesterday, The New Liturgical Movement posted this headline: Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Alexy II Praises Letter on 1962 Missal.

If you are interested in either the ecumenical movement or the Traditional Latin Mass you might find the above linked post to be an interesting read. Its focus is Alexy II's positive reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's decision to derestrict the Traditional Latin Mass.

This called to mind a very good article written last year on this same topic by Brian Mershon entitled, Archbishop Burke, Bishop Rifan Comment: Will Classical Liturgy Aid Reunion with Eastern Orthodox?

Some excerpts from Mershon's article follow:

Bishop Rifan: "I really think that the Traditional Latin Mass widely and freely available would be, among many other good reasons, a great benefit in the field of the true ecumenism with the Orthodox," he said. "This would be primarily because the Traditional Liturgy is much more similar to the Oriental [Eastern] rites in the aspect of the sacred, veneration, and beauty."

Archbishop Burke: "It seems to me for the Eastern rites, and for those of the Orthodox Churches, the reform of the liturgy after the council and the concrete expression is so stripped of the transcendent, of the sacral elements, it is difficult for them to recognize its relationship with their Eucharistic Liturgies," he said.

Dr. Alcuin Reid (a noted liturgical scholar): "I suspect that our current liturgical state does not exactly inspire confidence in them," Dr. Reid said. "The Holy Father is, no doubt, aware of this, and most probably hopes to give a sign that Rome wishes to set her liturgy in order once again, and that indeed Rome respects legitimate traditional liturgical rites.

John Cheevers (an Eastern Orthodox layman): "Organic development in liturgy is permissible. Radical invention is not. The Pauline liturgy implicitly seems to move away from the clear expressions of faith about the sacramental nature of the Divine Liturgy commonly understood in the undivided church of the first millennium."

Fr. Jano (a Ukrainian Catholic preist): "On the few occasions when I have served the Mass in Roman Catholic parishes, I have been very surprised to discover how uncomfortable I am with praying to God while facing the congregation," he said. "Probably the most jarring example for me, to illustrate this point, is when I have seen Roman priests reading a prayer at Mass and gazing intently at the congregation while uttering the prayer. I've never understood this," Fr. Jano said. "If you have something important to say to your Father, why would you stare at your brother when you're speaking to Him?

Fr. Thomas Kocik (a Roman Catholic Priest): "The Orthodox are justly disturbed not only by abuses in the post-Vatican II liturgy, but also by approved practices such as female altar servers, Mass 'facing the people' and Communion in the hand," he said. "Given the East's intense conservatism, I think the freeing of the Tridentine liturgy bodes well ecumenically, because these problematic practices are simply not standard features of the Classical Roman rite." "The Orthodox may interpret this as evidence of a renewed seriousness in the Roman Church about the ancient maxim, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' meaning that as we believe so we pray, and vice versa," he said. "Doctrine and worship influence each other."

Fr. Joseph Santos (a Roman Catholic priest): "Most Orthodox that I know agree that the change in the liturgy was disastrous for ecumenical relations." Fr. Santos said that the rule of "lex orandi, lex credendi" is extremely important in the Orthodox Church. "It is what binds them together as a Church that guards jealously that which has been handed down from the Apostles. If the words and actions are changed, so is the faith; especially in the minds of the laity.