The need for internal ecumenism
I had occasion today to go back to Yves Congar’s little book on the Lefebvre Affair, Challenge to the Church (Huntingdon, IN: OSV, 1976), toward the end of which he tried to engage the Lefebvrites in dialogue. He wrote:
It so often happens in squabbles between family or friends that the squabble feeds on itself as it goes on. The original cause is still there, but it has become hardened by pig-headedness and has passed the point of no-return.
A remedy must therefore be found. Couldn’t a kind of moratorium be agreed upon? …It has often been said that an internal ecumenism is necessary in today’s Church. From an objective point of view, this should be less difficult than the other kind of ecumenism since we have many more points of reference in common. Indeed, we have (nearly) everything in common! But it would be necessary to unclench our muscles and, with the help of God, arm ourselves with a very long-suffering patience. Is this beyond the limits of what’s possible?
I note, first, how this page anticipates the Common Ground Initiative; second, the awareness that family feuds can be the most bitter of all; and, third, that the problem he describes has not improved in the subsequent thirty-odd years. Only we don’t see it only in relation to the Lefebvrites; it exists more broadly in many a conversation among Catholics of contrasting views. We seem to find it more difficult to be courteous, respectful, and willing to listen to fellow-Catholics than we do to Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Some of the things we think it OK to say to or about fellow-Catholics we would criticize very harshly if we heard them said by a Catholic to or about people of other faiths.
In the case of the Lefebvrists it seem to me that Benedict has been pursuing, perhaps consciously, something very like the policy proposed by Yves Congar. It remains to be seen what he will achieve thereby. The Pius X Society seems so far unmoved in its fundamental claims. I wonder if a similar policy would have had more success with the Jansenists that the serial condemnations that issued from Rome. I think that sometimes people identify themselves with an idea or set of ideas in such a way that the consideration that they may have been mistaken looks tantamount to intellectual or moral suicide. This can be all the more powerful when it has a social dimension.
Thia of course does not in any way excuse impoliteness toward those with whom one disagrees, especially towards those whose ideas one has not bothered to investigate.
Found this (below) in the comments following a Damian Thompson artcile in the Telegrapch; the article referenced Father Ryan’s recent stunt about opposing the new ICEL translation. I thought it was sort of funny:
“An old joke that I have heard frequently at the Oratory comes speedily to mind. ‘What’s the difference between a terrorist and a 1970’s liturgical reformist? You can negotiate with the terrorist’”
;-)
I like British humor!
What a good passage from Congar.Yesterday, in the church I attend, we were treated to a homily looking forward the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (today, Monday 25 Jan.). The point was made that Saul of Tarsus, so learned in the Law, knew that he had all the answers, and thus logically became a persecutor, until his interrupted journey to Damascus brought him the light of grace. I do not know whether the preacher had any audience in mind other than his immediate congregation, but his point I found extremely well taken, and I can think of all kinds of other audiences that might well ponder the point (of course I myself am never guilty of such things. What, never? No, never. What, never? Well, hardly ever).
Of course it’s true that not only in religion that squabbles with one’s fellow members can quickly turn more acid than those with outside whatever particular fold we happen to cleave to (I think with a shudder of some faculty meetings I have known). In the case of squabbles among Catholics, at least here in the US, all too often they get mixed up with the general polarization of political and social views (Dems vs GOP, homosexuality, health care, foreign policy, etc.etc.) so that those questions are given an undeserved religious overlay, and there follows an invocation of the Bible, of church teaching, or ecclesiastical tradition, to trump the arguments of one’s opponents.
Somewhere Raymond Brown remarks on the damage done religious understanding by taking a snippet out of the Scripture, removing it from its context, and using it to prove whatever particular point one wants to use.
Fr. Martin has a past post at America magazine’s blog – Bishop Williamson: Vatican/SSPX Talks are “Dialogue of the Deaf” – which has Williamson saying about the dialogue between the Vatican and the SSPX …. “I think that will end up as a dialogue of the deaf. The two positions are absolutely irreconcilable. For example, 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are irreconcilable. So, either those who say 2+2=4 renounce the truth and agree that 2+2=5—that is, the [SSPX] abandons the truth, which God forbids us to do—or, well, those who say 2+2=5 convert and then return to the truth. Or, well, the two come halfway and say that 2+2=4-1/2. That’s false. Or, either the [SSPX] becomes a traitor, or Rome converts, or it’s a dialogue of the deaf.”
Maybe the reason it’s easier to accept differences in people outside the group is that they are indeed outside, while those inside have a level of sameness that must be met before they can qualify to be within the group?
It has always struck me that every tendency we see in the non-Catholic Christian churches exists inside the Catholic church today. Centuries of experience and theology has not really made a dent in this. But we seem to have a tendency to think that when we see someone doing something we don’t like, there is some movement afoot for their position to be declared the true orthodoxy.
“In the case of squabbles among Catholics, at least here in the US, all too often they get mixed up with the general polarization of political and social views (Dems vs GOP, homosexuality, health care, foreign policy, etc.etc.) so that those questions are given an undeserved religious overlay, and there follows an invocation of the Bible, of church teaching, or ecclesiastical tradition, to trump the arguments of one’s opponents. ”
This brings to mind a passage from the first voyage (A Voyage to Lilliput) of Gulliver’s Travels, and under the principle that any excuse to turn to Swift is a good one, I present the following:
“One Morning, about a Fortnight after I had obtained my Liberty, Reldresal, Prinicipal Secretary (as they style him) of private Affairs, came to my House, attended only by one Servant. He ordered his Coach to wait at a distance, and desired I would give him an Hour’s Audience; which I readily consented to, on account of his Quality, and Personal Merits, as well as the many good Offices he had done me during my Sollicitations at Court. I offered to lie down, that he might the more conveniently reach my Ear; but he chose rather to let me hold him in my hand during our Conversation. He began with Compliments on my Liberty; said he might pretend to some Merit in it: but, however, added, that if it had not been for the present Situation of things at Court, perhaps I might not have obtained it so soon. For, said he, as flourishing a Condition as we may appear to be in to Foreigners, we labor under two mighty Evils; a violent Faction at home, and the Danger of an Invasion by a most potent Enemy from abroad. As to the first, you are to understand, that for above seventy Moons past there have been two struggling Parties in this Empire, under the Names of Tramecksan and Slamecksan, from the high and low Heels on their shoes, by which they distinguish themselves. It is alleged indeed, that the high Heels are most agreeable to our ancient Constitution: But however this be, his Majesty has determined to make use of only low Heels in the Administration of the Government, and all Offices in the Gift of the Crown, as you cannot but observe; and particularly, that his Majesty’s Imperial Heels are lower at least by a Drurr than any of his Court; (Drurr is a Measure about the fourteenth Part of an Inch). The Animositys between these two Parties run so high, that they will neither eat nor drink, nor talk with each other. We compute the Tramecksan, or High-Heels, to exceed us in number; but the Power is wholly on our Side. We apprehend his Imperial Highness, the Heir to the Crown, to have some Tendency towards the High-Heels; at least we can plainly discover one of his Heels higher than the other, which gives him a Hobble in his Gait. Now, in the midst of these intestine Disquiets, we are threatened with an Invasion from the Island of Blefuscu, which is the other great Empire of the Universe, almost as large and powerful as this of his Majesty. For as to what we have heard you affirm, that there are other Kingdoms and States in the World inhabited by human Creatures as large as yourself, our Philosophers are in much doubt, and would rather conjecture that you dropt from the Moon, or one of the Stars; because it is certain, that a hundred Mortals of your Bulk would, in a short time, destroy all the Fruits and Cattle of his Majesty’s Dominions. Besides, our Histories of six thousand Moons make no mention of any other Regions, than the two great Empires of Lilliput and Blefuscu. Which two mighty Powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate War for six and thirty Moons past. It began upon the following Occasion. It is allowed on all Hands, that the primitive way of breaking Eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger End: But his present Majesty’s Grand-father, while he was a Boy, going to eat an Egg, and breaking it according to the ancient Practice, happened to cut one of his Fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his Father published an Edict, commanding all his Subjects, upon great Penaltys, to break the smaller End of their Eggs. The People so highly resented this Law, that our Histories tell us there have been six Rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his Life, and another his Crown. These civil Commotions were constantly fomented by the Monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the Exiles always fled for Refuge to that Empire. It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller End. Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole Party rendered incapable by Law of holding Employments. During the Course of these Troubles, the Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their Ambassadors, accusing us of making a Schism in Religion, by offending against a fundamental Doctrine of our great Prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth Chapter of the Brundrecal (which is their Alcoran.) This, however, is thought to be a meer Strain upon the Text: For the Words are these: That all true Believers shall break their Eggs at the convenient End: and which is the convenient End, seems, in my humble Opinion, to be left to every Man’s Conscience, or at least in the power of the Chief Magistrate to determine. Now the Big-Endian Exiles have found so much Credit in the Emperor of Blefuscu’s Court, and so much private Assistance and Encouragement from their Party here at home, that a bloody War has been carried on between the two Empires for six and thirty Moons with various Success; during which time we have lost forty Capital Ships, and a much greater number of smaller Vessels, together with thirty thousand of our best Seamen and Soldiers; and the Damage received by the Enemy is reckon’d to be somewhat greater than Ours. However, they have now equipped a numerous Fleet, and are just preparing to make a Descent upon us; and his Imperial Majesty, placing great Confidence in your Valour and Strength, has commanded me to lay this Account of his affairs before you.”
I never thought I would find myself defending the Society of St. Pius X, but I cannot help but say, after considerable soul searching, that they are correct in maintaining 2 + 2 = 4.
Call it egotism, a person is not a prophet in her own country, an expert is someone who lives fifty miles away—–We tend to disparage people we cannot control; especially it they disagree with us. Augustine, the dubious leader of the Western church, dialogued more with soldiers than the did with other Christians, especially the Donatists. Athanasius marshalled forces on anyone who challenging his dubious ascendancy to the bishopric.
We gain more by bribery than we do in offering that crucifixion may be our ending. We ignore Romero and Day but canonize Pius IX et alii. We expound eloquently on original sin but maintain our immaculate conception.
The light of Christ will give sundry surpises.
What BXVI has done is reaffirm a point in common. The EF is a legitimate expression of Catholic faith. This deprives SSPX of their identity as defenders of the Tridentine Rite, and forces them to identify the other differences, ie whether 2+2=4. If liturgy is the difference, all will be resolved; if other issues predominate, there will be no reconciliation. (anyone know how are the talks going?)
BXVI has offered the same thing to the traditional Anglicans. (Is this another ‘internal’ act?)
That our internal arguments have gotten terrible is clearly underscored by the article of Fr. Kavangh in America a while back arguing that the Church looked like people hating each other.
The demise of NPLC in New york is just another sign.
We have adopted the polarization game of society in which power/winning is all that matters.
BXVI in his idea of carrying out VII has alienated lots of folks and the visitation of our nuns has only underscored this.
It’s easy to call for civility(I’ve done it and I’ve violated that call too.)
But as long as polarization and spin remain de riguer in our society, I see not much hope for change.
I guess I also feel a large part of the blame for that falls on leadership as well.
That Pope Benedict – How dare he (the Catholic Pope) try to tell Catholic bishops or Catholic nuns what to do!
;-)
Jim McK, you obviously don’t know much about the SSPX. They do not merely say that their way of celebrating the liturgy is acceptable. For Pope Benedict to acknowledge their legitimacy is not their goal. They say that what the rest of the church is doing liturgically is not acceptable. That it is founded on theological error. Thus, I don’t think they are interested in “the Anglican solution.” And it’s one of the things I like about them, frankly. They stick to their guns.
Ken, could you try not to be so insulting to Fr. Ryan as to call his petition a “stunt”? More than 12,600 people have signed it to date, and among them many people better placed than you to evaluate the issues. You may disagree all you want, but put downs are cheap and unworthy of you. Damian Thompson is enraged, but there’s no reason for you to be.
I think that the difference between Christian viewpoints is intrinsic to the religion. They have been with us always. They always will be with us. The Church has survived nonetheless. Whether we let these things divide us is really up to us. But they will never go away.
Maybe we (as a Church) could give up dogmatism and righteous indignation for Lent.
“Somewhere Raymond Brown remarks on the damage done religious understanding by taking a snippet out of the Scripture, removing it from its context, and using it to prove whatever particular point one wants to use.”
I will always remember what one of my scripture professors told me a long time ago:
Proof text
Out of context
Is pretext.
“That Pope Benedict – How dare he (the Catholic Pope) try to tell Catholic bishops or Catholic nuns what to do!”
“Authoritarianism is authority that has ceased to struggle to become leadership.”
Richard A. McCormick, SJ
“I think that the difference between Christian viewpoints is intrinsic to the religion. They have been with us always. They always will be with us. The Church has survived nonetheless.”
Unagidon’s right. If Paul and Peter could come to agreement about one of the most divisive and painful (literally and figuratively) issues in the early Church–i.e., whether Gentile male converts must be circumscised–then there’s hope for bridging the divide on the issues that separate us today. It’s worthwhile to recall, too, that Peter had to overcome many preconceptions about whether Christ’s message was intended for non-Jews. It was not until he met Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10) and learned that this Gentile had received an angelic vision, and after Peter had also received his own angelic vision, that this first among the Apostles fully realized that the social, cultural, and ethnic differences between Jews and Gentiles were irrelevant. I don’t think the challenges facing the Church today are any more difficult to resolve than the complete transformation that took place in Peter as to who belongs to the Body of Christ.
By way of information; seems the rollout of the new translation is on course:
http://catholickey.org/index.php3?gif=news.gif&mode=view&issue=20100108&article_id=6042
Example:
“…But Deacon Wehner said the essence of the celebration of Mass is not changing.
“It’s the same Mass, new words,” he said, noting that translations into other languages, such as French and Spanish, have already followed the Latin closely.
“When we are praying in English, we’ll be praying the same meaning of the prayer as in the church’s Latin,” Deacon Wehner noted….”
Rita, my apologies if I was not clear. BXVI has reaffirmed a point in common so that the dialog can move on to other disagreements. The SSPX can no longer pose as simply promoters of the traditional liturgy; the other more problematic positions now can come to the foreground.
Similarly with the Anglicans. Accepting their liturgy, other issues can now surface.
In both cases there are questions about authority that BXVI has spent his life trying to understand, and are probably his principal interest.
1) Thanks to Bill Collier for a fine post.
2)I want to urge folks to listen to the America on line Podcast of Rowan Williams accepting the Campion award this year.
The gentle graciousness he brings is perhaps indicative of the kind of civility lacking in our Church and even here at this blog.