www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What kind of Catholic?

During my diaconate studies, I came across an article authored by Avery Dulles which has intrigued me. It is entitled "The Four Faces of American Catholicism" and deals with the state of the Post Vatican II American church. (Louvain Studies 18 (1993) 99-109)

I think his theory has relevance for the Eastern churches as I can see elements of his theory throughout these forums. However, I don't think it is an "exact fit" for our churches, for our people. I am interested to see what the rest of you think.

He describes four basic types of American Catholics:

1) Traditionalist-"the immigrant tradition..." "recognize the profound links between faith and culture, but they regard the prevailing secular culture as inimical to Catholic faith. They seek to preserve at least some zones, such as the family, the neighborhood, the parish, and the church-related school, as environments favorable to the transmission of Catholic faith and morals... Religiously they dwell in a Catholic subculture, but in their professional and business life some traditionalists remain quite secular."

2) Neoconservatism--"... hold that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution are in basic harmony with the Catholic tradition of reason and natural law.... believe that it is possible to combine full acceptance of the American experiment with loyal adherence to the social teaching of John Paul II and the directives issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Some of these thinkers assert that the American system of democratic capitalism, rightly understood, is beginning to enrich Catholic social teaching, which has until recently relied too heavily on state intervention into the economy."

3) Liberal Catholicism-- "shows greater concern with introducing the values of American democracy into the internal life the Catholic church,... look upon the Church as a free, voluntary society and deplore what they regard as the residues of medieval authoritarianism. Some seek to restruceure the Church along the lines of parliamentary democracy.... The powers of bishops and popes would be constitutionally restricted. ... Priests would be free to marry and to resign from the ministry as well. Women would be eligible for priestly and episcopal ordination. Dioceses would be governed, at least in some measure, by elected pastoral councils. Throughout the Church there would be subsidiarity, decentralization, and separation of powers. Catholics would be free to dissent from official Church teaching..."

4) Evangelical radicalism--"marked by total commitment to the gospel, voluntary poverty, and non-violence." .."inspires dedication and sacrifice seen in the tremendous vitality of projects serving poor, homeless and powerless people..." Dulles points out that most Catholics admire this type of Catholicism even though they do not join these radical movements. He further states that the problem with these radical movements is that often they become a cult of personality. The people are led astray often into "apocalyptic sectarianism and moral perfectionism." This probably includes liberation theology, feminist theology, and so on but he ponders as to whether these specific examples would be better suited for a fifth cathegory.

(I recognize that I did not highlight the problems endemic to the other three positions, but they seem to be much more self evident).

He places the traditionalists who "are critical of secular culture" in conflict with the liberals who are "accomodationist."

Similarly, the neoconservatives who find both "Catholicism and American culture basically good" are in opposition to the radicals who find both "fundamentally corrupt."

Thus, the question before us: are these also the "faces" of the post Vatican II Eastern churches or do we segregate among different lines?

Fr. Dcn John

С новым годом.

Most interesting, Fr Dcn John. Someone else once wrote something similar called The Coming of the Third Church or something like that, with similar categories.

1) Traditionalist-"the immigrant tradition..." "recognize the profound links between faith and culture, but they regard the prevailing secular culture as inimical to Catholic faith. They seek to preserve at least some zones, such as the family, the neighborhood, the parish, and the church-related school, as environments favorable to the transmission of Catholic faith and morals... Religiously they dwell in a Catholic subculture..."

Amen! May their tribe continue to increase. (At the SSPX Mass I went to Dec. 24, there were a lot of teenagers — second and perhaps third-generation traditionalists. The contracepting church liberals don't have that.)

"...but in their professional and business life some traditionalists remain quite secular."

A valid criticism. Most of us don't live up to our beliefs.

2) Neoconservatism--"... hold that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution are in basic harmony with the Catholic tradition of reason and natural law.... believe that it is possible to combine full acceptance of the American experiment with loyal adherence to the social teaching of John Paul II and the directives issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Some of these thinkers assert that the American system of democratic capitalism, rightly understood, is beginning to enrich Catholic social teaching, which has until recently relied too heavily on state intervention into the economy."

I like this view too, though I balk at "full acceptance', and don't see it as inherently contradictory with 1).

3) Liberal Catholicism-- "shows greater concern with introducing the values of American democracy into the internal life the Catholic church,... look upon the Church as a free, voluntary society and deplore what they regard as the residues of medieval authoritarianism. Some seek to restruceure the Church along the lines of parliamentary democracy.... The powers of bishops and popes would be constitutionally restricted. ... Priests would be free to marry and to resign from the ministry as well. Women would be eligible for priestly and episcopal ordination. Dioceses would be governed, at least in some measure, by elected pastoral councils. Throughout the Church there would be subsidiarity, decentralization, and separation of powers. Catholics would be free to dissent from official Church teaching..."

Priests already can and do resign from the ministry. What Cardinal Dulles describes in 3) is pretty much dissenter, counterfeit, Amchurch religion masquerading as Catholicism and doing a lot of damage over the past 30 years, even among Byzantines. Basically these want to repeat the history of Protestantism. Such should be labeled honestly — no longer Catholic. Frankly, I wish most of the ones in clergy and academic posts would be publicly excommunicated.

4) Evangelical radicalism--"marked by total commitment to the gospel, voluntary poverty, and non-violence." .."inspires dedication and sacrifice seen in the tremendous vitality of projects serving poor, homeless and powerless people..." Dulles points out that most Catholics admire this type of Catholicism even though they do not join these radical movements.

I don't see this ideal as inherently contrary to either 1) or 2)! Neither did Catholics like Dorothy Day or Catherine de Hueck Doherty, though the criticism of such for the free market sometimes was economically or politically naive.

He further states that the problem with these radical movements is that often they become a cult of personality. The people are led astray often into "apocalyptic sectarianism and moral perfectionism."

If they stray from the objective truth of the faith, yes, this is a danger — just like with sectarian Protestantism or certain political movements.

This probably includes liberation theology, feminist theology, and so on but he ponders as to whether these specific examples would be better suited for a fifth category.

I wouldn't lump these heresies (both now on the wane, thank God) in the same category with orthodox movements that are radically oriented to the whole faith — gospel, social teaching, doctrine, etc. (like the Catholic Worker when Day was alive, Friendship House in the 1930s or Madonna House).

I think his theory has relevance for the Eastern churches as I can see elements of his theory throughout these forums. However, I don't think it is an "exact fit" for our churches, for our people.

Yes, it is relevant and no, it doesn't fit exactly. I see three factions among Byzantine Catholics:

1) The Orthodox. These want to eliminate differences between themselves and their Orthodox mother Churches in the hope of being a witness and forerunner of a reunited Church. Such are highly represented online (like here) and in certain Byzantine Catholic Churches (Russian and Melkite).

2) The Latinized. Such often are older, remembering the hybridism of the churches of their childhoods, do not identify with the Orthodox and want to maintain their differences from them as if they were badges of being Catholic. Such seem to be the majority among Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics (certainly among the bishops).

3) People corrupted by type 3) RCs. I've met some. Not a whole lot though.

Byzantine 2) and perhaps 3) explain contradictory nonsense like trying to introduce "eucharistic ministers' into the Ruthenian Church.

Does Cardinal Dulles' model apply to the Orthodox? I don't think so. The factions among Orthodox all seem less liberal and closer to each other than those among Catholics. New Skete monastery, derided as liberal by many Orthodox, certainly would NOT fit in at a Call to Action meeting! There is old vs. new calendar, pro- vs. anti-ecumenical dialogue, different opinions whether non-Orthodox Churches have grace, the sad modern Orthodox sellout on contraception, the deafening indifference to prolife... even canonical vs. uncanonical (like with the Kiev Patriarchate). Yet, with one faith and the same traditional liturgy, "the Church is one, her mysteries are one.' Glory to God, слава Богу, glory to God.

http://oldworldrus.com
New:
• The Truth about Kwanzaa (yikes!)
• Operation Keelhaul - How FDR and Churchill sent Russian exiles to their deaths (I know people who escaped from this)
• Rewritten Intro page

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Serge;

Thanks for your reply. You are actually the one I thought of when I formulated this thread. Congratulations also on successfully meandering around a potential landmine. Dulles points out that the above types reflect not the way Catholics say they believe, but rather in the way they (we) live their (our) lives. You have also pointed out the same pitfalls he did for liberalism. I also concur that this "type" does not really seem to fit the Eastern churches. I agree with you on your examples and thoughts on radical evangelism.

I'm still not sure if your headings truly reflect the Eastern theo-political experience but I think they are a good beginning. I want to further explore this Orthodox vs. Hybridizer idea. I don't disagree but wonder if better titles would be Holistic vs. Emotional or Depth vs Breadth. Let me expound.

First, considering the Hybridizer as one who wishes to incorporate the "best of both worlds" into a truly unique and authentic witness of the Divine reality, then, I would consider the two poles to be:

Holistic-A personal (body, soul and spirit) journey into the core of one's being.

Emotional-An immediate intense experience into the sacramental life of the Church universal.

Alternatively,

Depth-A personal (body, soul, and spirit) journey into the depth of one's being. One recognizes that the intensity of the journey and the depths reached require the constitutive elements of only one Tradition (West or East). Due to human limitation, one cannot see from two reference points simultaneously. The journey is first personal and then universal. We are in continuity with our Fathers and Fore-Fathers. We are in continuity with our past.

Breadth-A universal journey into the breadth of human existence and our relationship with the Divine. The separation of the Traditions into West and East is arbitrary and in-authentic. the modern Church can learn from both experiences so as to follow an ever-more authentic and universal witness to the living Christ. The journey must first, and foremost be universal before it can be personal. We are a "Pilgrim People"(Lumen Gentium) in continuity with the future.

John

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Petrus ]

Fr Dcn John,

Thanks for your reply. You are actually the one I thought of when I formulated this thread. Congratulations also on successfully meandering around a potential landmine.

You're welcome, I'm honored and thanks.

Your categories of holistic vs. emotional sound pretty good. Thought-provoking, and a fair characterization of the Orthodox among you, in the first, holistic group. That approach is right, but in a way your second group is right too in that, ultimately, rites and patrimonies are secondary to the essence of the faith and can and do change over time. Two rites could blend into one, and new rites can evolve into being. And in theory the Church could ultimately be one rite or 100 rites... But heavy-handed, Nicholas Elko-style Latinization isn't the answer. Some of us here are convinced that the Orthification of Byzantine Catholicism is from God and part of the work of ending the Schism. And get impatient with obstructions to that, like the belief that somehow Latinized BCness, based on the just-plain-wrong view that the more Roman one is, the more Catholic, is an "improved' version of Orthodoxy meant to replace the latter. (Considering by how much Orthodox worldwide outnumber BCs, shyeah, right.)

Thinking about groups among the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics, some more ideas come to mind. Some of these have been written down before by others.

Among the Orthodox you find the hardline version of Cardinal Dulles' 1) Roman Catholics. Old calendar, anti-ecumenical dialogue, belief that non-Orthodox are graceless, not a lot of economy regarding fasting or reception of converts, etc. One can find such in the European homelands, like in the Church in Russia and among the Mt Athos monks and Old Calendarist factions in Greece. In America, I think one sees this more among converts than ethnic born members. Sometimes the newcomers to 1) have an inflexible book-learnt religion lacking charity, and some may carry over their no-Popery prejudices from Protestantism.

Eastern 2) may be more ecumenical and use economy more. The Orthodox active on forums like this and the Orthodox among the BCs may be at home in 2). But, just like with Roman Catholics, you can't always pigeonhole such politically. There are those who, like 1), hold that Tsardom (Byzantine symphonia between Church and state) is the best and most Christian form of government* but also those (perhaps mostly among converts) who accept forms of American conservatism, from the libertarian-flavored brand I like to the GOP/neoconservative variety**. Some, like 3) below, may for understandable historical or familial reasons, still mistakenly identify with the Democratic Party, etc. as friends of the working man.

Then there is 3), what I and some others have called "ethnic Protestantism', commoner perhaps among born members than converts. (And seen in all Churches, not just Eastern ones.) This mindset puts church in a little box in one's life, a kind of decoration one takes out and admires on special occasions like weddings and funerals, or on holidays like Pascha or going to visit Baba at Christmas. This religiosity doesn't affect how one votes, whether raw capitalist or pink socialist, or affect other aspects of one's life (like sex). Here is where I put such awful trends as selling out on contraception and indifference to prolife. Such people don't want to be like those "embarrassing' Catholics making a scene over these issues. They've finally arrived in American society, damn it, and don't want anything getting in the way of that. Religion is like Santa Claus... "it's good for the kids, so I send them to catechism/Sunday school/Greek school... but me? I live in the real world.'

Latinized BCs probably make up substantial numbers in 2) and 3).

There is way too much of 3) in Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic life in America. We have the consolation, certainly in the Orthodox Churches, that one really doesn't see much (if any) of Dulles' RC 3). There are no Orthodox seminary teachers denying the divinity of Christ, nor is there a Ukrainian Catholic branch of the Women's Ordination Conference (thank God). Our 3) is more insidious than that but still a real problem.

Our version of 4) does exist, but is more "contemplative' — our Orthodox monastics are our radical evangelical-living group! In the Orthodox St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, monastics and those associated with them, you can see a meeting of 1) and 4). They did and do lots of charitable work in their northern California home base.

http://oldworldrus.com

*St Tsar Nicholas II himself once visited the US before he was Tsar and thought our republic was a fine system that worked for us.

**Where religious freedom is a relative good that allows people to practice the true faith, and where perhaps the lack of state control or coercion is actually good for the Church, treating all, even those who are wrong, with charity.

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Father Deacon John,

I think Cardinal Dulles' and Serge's characterizations are accurate, but in a limited sense. The above categories in both the Latin and Byzantine Churches usually seem to apply to the vocal and outgoing who are usually a minority yet are usually in leadership positions. The majority of parishoners seem to be ordinary folk who go to Mass/Liturgy on Sundays and try to lead simple good lives to the best of their ability. They seem totally uninterested in the details of liturgical correctness, politics, or canon law and generally accept the pastor and parish leaderships' decisions.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I think I'm with my brother Lance on this one.

Most of God's people are just concerned about being 'practicing Christians' and trying to discern what they should be doing from event to event in their lives.

From the perspective of the 'educated' Christian (of whatever rank), I would propose the image of the onion.

Each layer of the onion represents a specific 'context': historical theology, systematic theology, dogmatic theology, liturgical theology, moral theology, pastoral theology, scripture, canon 'law', eschatology, epistemology, and a whole mess of other -ologies.

The absolute, indisputable core is the commandment of Christ: Love God; love one's neighbor as one's self.

Some Christians get stuck in one or another of the onion's layers. And, additionally, they have the conviction that the content of each layer is consistent with the content of the other layers. The venerable St. Thomas of Aquinas, in his "Summa Theologica" attempted to propose a coherent whole of everything in each of the onion's layers. He did a great job; but it was outdated the day it was published because human understanding moves on.

And so, we must be unceasingly aware of the 'core value' given to us by Christ: Love.

While some are ready to load their automatic weapons based upon historical, systematic, dogmatic, canon law, etc. elements, the reality is: these ALL must be subordinated to the core values. If the contents of any of the onion-layers contradicts the core value, then it must be excised.

We've seen a whole mess of posts about the Pope kissing the Koran, the canonical status of various communities, the ability to share communion, the validity of sacraments, the 'ordainability' of women, etc. These are merely tangential elements to the core requirement of "love" as the essence of our path to salvation. And I have a lot of empathy for those who anchor themselves in one or another of the layers; it seems like they are trying to ensure their salvation by fastening themselves to what is "of the faith".

Unfortunately, by anchoring themselves in an 'outer layer' of the onion of the faith, they are not able to move through all the layers, and especially to move to the core: Love God, love one's neighbor (without footnotes).

While I clearly understand why they anchor themselves to one or another layer (fear of damnation), I would hope that folks could understand that it is the core, and the core alone, that is the essence of our faith. The outer layers should serve as a protectant of the core; but if they are contradictory to the core, then they must be abandoned.

Thus, when I'm told "return to Orthodoxy to ensure your salvation", or "follow the Canons", or "preserve the Tradition", or "outside the [Roman] Catholic Church there is no salvation", I just have to chuckle.

My God isn't that restricted. Having been baptized, I have the right to call upon the Holy Spirit and the community to help me work out my salvation. And I know that my first and foremost responsibility is to pray and to love God/love my neighbor. And I demand of myself a constant re-evaluation of what I'm doing, and a prayer to God that I be guided on what to do next. And I use all kinds of people (even Methodists!!!) to let me know if I'm failing at something. (And most folks are MORE than willing to point out one's failings.)

So, if I'm not at liturgy on Sunday, but rather at Mom's bedside at the nursing home, harassing the nurses and nurse aides, then I believe that I'm doing what the Lord wants. And if I don't leave a dinner with a friend who is having severe trouble to get to Presanctified, then I don't question what I'm doing. And when I take my lunch hour to sit in the RC cathedral and forget to eat, then it's just doing the priority. Or if I take money out of my wallet to give to a street person, and don't have the cash to buy lunch, then it's a God-priority.

For me -- and I hope for the rest of us -- the priority is to love God (as best I can -- and it aint' easy!) and to love my neighbor (sometimes a real challenge!). The rest is just frosting on the cake. And to use the 'other stuff' as the touchstone for salvation is just diverting attention from the real demand of Christ.

Blessings, y'all!

I think Cardinal Dulles' and Serge's characterizations are accurate, but in a limited sense. The above categories in both the Latin and Byzantine Churches usually seem to apply to the vocal and outgoing who are usually a minority yet are usually in leadership positions.

The rank and file may not necessarily articulate their beliefs nor systematize them like Cardinal Dulles', Fr Dcn John's or my categories, but the categories still apply.

God in His mysterious ways gives grace where He will, Dr J, and certainly charity counts a lot as a sign of that grace, no matter where you find it. But the Church is different from Unitarian Universalism, John Lennon's "Imagine' (I hate that song — an anthem for Antichrist) or, in my city, the Ethical Society, like the Unitarians a sort of substitute church for agnostics, all of which teach some form of lowest-common-denominator, golden-rule charity. It isn't just secular humanism with pretty ethnic trappings or a cheerleader on the sidelines for social democracy.

"Aslan is not a tame lion.' — C.S. Lewis

http://oldworldrus.com

Brother Serge notes:

"God in His mysterious ways gives grace where He will, Dr J, and certainly charity counts a lot as a sign of that grace, no matter where you find it. But the Church is different from Unitarian Universalism, ..."

Indeed. However, I don't think that "charity counts a lot as a sign of that grace". It doesn't "count a lot" as a sign, rather: it is the essence -- it IS the grace.

By saying other things count "more" than the grace of 'love of God/love of neighbor', we've inverted the pyramid of salvation and have proposed our priorities over those of the Master. While this may make the "CHURCH" a primal player in the eschaton, the fact is, we've invented a 'tertium quid' (a third-party) as a role in our salvation when, in reality, it is GOD and ME.

Abdicating my personal responsiblity in my salvation to the "Church" is a cop-out. The Church is very valid as a player, but it is ONLY there as a witness and support to my life. Where I stand at the last judgement depends upon what I have done and have tried to do. I pray that the community known as the church and as the human family will stand with me as a witness to what I've done. But the responibility for my soul is MINE and mine alone. Though I may ask the community of the faithful to intercede on my behalf, it is still on my hand.


So, let' not get too involved in the mechanics of salvation; let's just be aware of our own personal responsibilities and the role of the church/community in supporting each of us.

Blessings!

Lance:

I don't think you appreciate Cardinal Dulles "faces." Your silent majority would be considered under the Traditionalist group. This group follows the authority invested by the church and live their lives accordingly. Dulles does state that the immigrant populations typically ascribe to this type of Catholicism. One does not have to be vocal to have an opinion or a committed way of living.

Secondly, I think our own Church's history betrays the concept of a simple and malleable majority. Our Church has had a whole series of schisms based on "trivial" and non-theological concepts such as a celibate priesthood, Old vs. New Calendar, and trusteeism. I don't even want to mention those individuals who became Roman Catholic because "it is the same...." As a result, the current Ruthenian church is left with a minority of the Ruthenian population.

Lance and Dr. John:

Since I am trying to develop a comprehensive model of our church, am I left to assume that we need to add a category (to Cardinal Dulles model)best labelled as:

Habitual--Persons who have no commitment to Eastern or Western Tradition. The motivation for their religious life is based on habit. They go to a certain Church, on a certain day, and do things in a certain way because they have always done so.

Dr. John:

Are you implying that Liberal Catholicism is alive and well and living in the Byzantine churches? Democratic freedom allows one to determine one's own course for spirituality that at times is contrary to the tradition of the Church. I was hoping someone would open this door! How does this relate to the East vs. West, the Holistic vs Emotional, Depth vs Breadth, Personal vs Universal dimensions?

Second, is Liberal Catholicism contrary to Byzantine Tradition?

Third, I don't like the onion analogy. If you continue to peel away the layers of an onion you will sooner or later be left with nothing.

To All;

I would like to change my above Emotional heading to Experiential. I am concerned that the word Emotional might be considered pejorative by some which is not my intent. So let me restate:

Holistic-A personal (body, soul and spirit) journey into the core of one's being.

Experiential-An immediate intense experience into the sacramental life of the Church universal.

Depth-A personal (body, soul, and spirit) journey into the depth of one's being. One recognizes that the intensity of the journey and the depths reached require the constitutive elements of only one Tradition (West or East). Due to human limitation, one cannot see from two reference points simultaneously. The journey is first personal and then universal. We are in continuity with our Fathers and Fore-Fathers. We are in continuity with our past.

Breadth-A universal journey into the breadth of human existence and our relationship with the Divine. The separation of the Traditions into West and East is arbitrary and in-authentic, the modern Church can learn from both experiences so as to folow an ever more authentic and universal witness to the living Christ. Teh journey must first and foremost be universla before it can be personal. We are a "Pilgrim People" (Lumen Gentium) in continuity with the future.

John

Thanks for starting this thread Petrus.

It is a useful intellectual exercise to hold up to the light all kinds of things and find ways in which they are alike and different. This creating of mental constructs, in this case by breaking a whole into parts called categories, is a most useful tool. It is one of those thinking operations that we humans use to try to develop a fuller picture of what we are studying.

It is a tool for understanding. We delineate parts or groups and examine them. We describe what we perceive to be their characteristics. We put the whole back together with a wider range of understanding of it through our knowledge of its perceived parts.

It is easy to misuse thinking operations which are intended to help us to build a mental image of the whole however. There is danger in their misuse. We might confuse the mental construct that is inside of our heads with the reality that is outside of our heads. We can select out a part and say that it is or should be the real whole! We might not put the pieces together again in our minds in a way that presents a picture that is close to the reality.

Avery Dulles does a nice job of creating mental constructs within which we can slot our fellow believers who happen to be Latin Catholic. Using them we can examine the Latin Church and by extension forge into discussion of the different Churches.

The discussion here can be most useful, I think, as long as we remember that we are holding up to the light the Churches that make up the Body of Christ. We are using human mental constructs, not revealed truth, to examine His Body.

The examination of any of the Churches using this mental construct and others like it could inspire some to exclude from the the idea of Church any group that the examiner or reader sees fit to exclude when he reassembles the pieces. That is a misuse of a tool or designed to build understanding. It distorts the image of reality for the examiner and any one else who accepts his or her judgements without deep examination.

The categories then become a wedge for division. It is simply inappropriate to use Dulles' categories (or other man made mental constructs) to suggest that people should be excluded from our love and our brotherhood. To wish for them to be taken from communion in the Body of Christ because they are "traditional" or "liberal" or "neoconservative" or "evangical radical" is intellectually unsupported by the method and is poor ecclesiology. It is a misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the Chruch is whole without them or could be.

There is no tradtional Church; there is no radical evangelical Catholic Church; there is no neo conservative Catholic Church; there is no liberal Catholic Church in union with the Pope. There is no AmChurch in union with the Pope. Those are mental constructs derived from a misuse of mental constructs designed to aid in learning, in my opinion.

There is one Universal Church. It is present where Christians join with their bishop and celebrate the Mysteries and Liturgies. It is seen by others in the loving work of its members in the world. It is made visible on the larger scale by bishops in union with each other. The first among them, the touchstone and servant of communion for Catholics is the Bishop of Rome.

The point here is that the mental constructs are not reality. They are simply tools to help us to learn and to understand.

When the constructs color our perceptions of reality to the extent that they inhibit our ability to love our brother or sister and share communion with them, it is the construct which must be set aside, not our brother or sister.

That disregard or disrespect for fellow believers in the greatest danger of all in using mental consturcts inappropriately. We are called to love and to treat one another as we have been loved and because we have first been loved by God.
We have been commanded to love everyone. We are not free to deny communion or brotherhood on the basis of mental constructs.

Steve
JOY!

Second, is Liberal Catholicism contrary to Byzantine Tradition?

That's a big 10-4, good buddy. (Да.) Two different, contradictory religions, as Thomas Day rightly observed. Plus, Liberal Catholicism is neither: in practice it is often most illiberal, hypocritically so, and it is not Catholic.

I understood what you meant the first time, but I also thought "emotional' could be taken as pejorative. Renaming that category is a good idea.

It is simply inappropriate to use Dulles' categories (or other man made mental constructs) to suggest that people should be excluded from our love and our brotherhood. To wish for them to be taken from communion in the Body of Christ because they are "traditional" or "liberal" or "neoconservative" or "evangical radical" is intellectually unsupported by the method and is poor ecclesiology. It is a misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the Chruch is whole without them or could be.


Steve, excommunications and anathemas simply acknowledge what in fact the person or people involved have chosen for themselves. By choosing heterodoxy, such — Cardinal Dulles' category 3 — put themselves outside "our brotherhood'. We don't stop loving them, and we don't presume to know about their salvation but they are de facto if not yet de jure outside the Church.

http://oldworldrus.com
• Expanded Q&A page with section explaining icons vs. statues (link is on new Intro page)
• Muslim extremists in Nazareth harass Christians

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Steve writes above:

"There is no tradtional Church; there is no radical evangelical Catholic Church; there is no neo conservative Catholic Church; there is no liberal Catholic Church in union with the Pope. There is no AmChurch in union with the Pope. Those are mental constructs derived from a misuse of mental constructs designed to aid in learning, in my opinion."

And further:

"The point here is that the mental constructs are not reality. They are simply tools to help us to learn and to understand.

When the constructs color our perceptions of reality to the extent that they inhibit our ability to love our brother or sister and share communion with them, it is the construct which must be set aside, not our brother or sister."

BINGO! That's the Gospel in a nutshell.

It's easy to set up boxes with defined characteristics of the contents. Then, we can stick people into the box and say: "That's them." And we can either praise or condemn depending upon where WE stand.

The reality is: those who love God and who love their neighbor, and conduct their lives in consort with these two commands, are apparently doing what Christ commanded. Are they liberals or conservatives? Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican? Probably. "By their works shall you know them."

Blessings to all "men of good will".

Dr. John,

Indeed so. We must love one another. But without truth there really is no love. Jesus Christ is a judge as well as a lover and He is Lover because He is just.

You are certainly correct that love must guide all things that we do. Nevertheless, there must be some reason for discernment. There must be some reason that Christ gave us means to adjudicate disputes.

Since He has given us both of these gifts and these commands there is by definition some things that are right and some things that are wrong. It is incumbant upon us to discern this with love, but discern this we must.

Dan Lauffer

But Serge,

Is it appropriate to determine heterodoxy based on how people fit into categories which are simply constructs of a human mind? I do not believe that Dulles suggests such a use of his constructs.

I believe that the example of fraternal Charity given by Pope John Paul II in delaying a break with the Lefeberist movement is a case in point. He did not remove them from Church. He sought reconciliation and encouraged those in the movement who sought to reunite to retain practices which are not in general use in the Church. His behavior exemplifies the love of the Shepherd who goes looking for his lost sheep despite the fact that some criticized the Pope for his patient love.

It is with great pain that he recognized that the extremists by their ecclesiological break had removed themselves from the union with him that is at the core of the Catholic Communion. It was a visibly sad ending to a long attempt to maintain communion. There was a corporate breaking of communion, reluctantly accepted.

That is a far contrast from persons who are labeled heterodox simply on the basis of thinking or speaking or behaving in ways that are different and that are annoying some who disagree. Those behaviors do not make them heterodox.

Those who behave and speak differently and so annoy others are in the church until they consciously leave it or are removed by legitimate authority. Those described as Liberal and the extreme traditionalists in Dulles' categories, for example, even believe that they are working to assist the Church. I look wonderingly on them and to try to glimpse the finger of the Spirit writing straight with crooked lines.

The labels are our mental constructs to identify elements in the Latin Church about whom we wish to speak or learn. They are not declarations of heteordoxy. Formal anethemas and excommunications are relatively rare in the Latin Church today. They are the business of the Bishops and Pope.

They cannot be and ought not be pronounced by laymen. It should cause great pain for any Christian to learn that another Christian has cut himself or herself from the Church privately. It is even more sorrowful when the community removes someone. It is an occassion of sadness and regret.

Setting those criteria, thank God, is in the hands of our bishops and the Pope. Even when those criteria must be proclaimed and heterodoxy proclaimed, it is done reluctantly and with an eye to the Mercy of God.

I, for one, am happy to leave it there. I mean no disrespect, but I find it difficult to understand how some posters here are so quick to pick up that sad work with, at times, apparent gusto! I am too concerned that I might be judged with the judgement that I might make about others.

That being the case, I repeat that, when the constructs color our perceptions of reality to the extent that they inhibit our ability to love our brother or sister and share communion with them, it is the construct which must be set aside, not our brother or sister.

The categories then become a wedge for division. It is simply inappropriate to use Dulles' categories (or other man made mental constructs) to suggest that people should be excluded from our love and our brotherhood. To wish for them to be taken from communion in the Body of Christ because they are "traditional" or "liberal" or "neoconservative" or "evangical radical" is intellectually unsupported by the method and is poor ecclesiology.

I really believe that it is a misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the Chruch is whole without them or could be.

Serge, to believe that all of those identified as belonging to Category 3 are de facto outside the bonds of the Church seems to be an untenable position. They do not believe it. The Pope has not dismissed them and they are in communion with our bishops. They worship along side us. Those are facts de facto and de jure.

Personal dislike, on the part of posters here or elsewhere, of the characteristics attributed to those groups does not constitute a meaningful basis for a declaration to the contrary. The reality is that the Latin Chruch is not whole without all of her children. She knows that and is trying to reflect her knowledge that unity does not mean uniformity.

It requires a strong committment to discipline to do this. It is the kind of discipline that Vatican II has encouraged, a kind of internal fasting from the overuse of power and greed and lust and eating. It is the kind of discipline that keeps one exhibiting suffering love in the face of obnoxious persons and in insufferable situations. It is the kind of discipline that must be nurtured. It cannot be mandated.

Sometimes I think that some posters here see in the Latin Chruch what they want to see. They see her through mental constructs that cloud their judgement about what she really is. The reality is, in truth, much more complicated than the constructs allow them to know.

Those of us at home in her are filled with awe at the coat of many colors that God is weaving in her through our diversity in unity. Dulles' categories are ways of looking at the strands of color, not scissors with which to cut the cloth.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

I believe you have established a false dichotomy and then have tried to label those who disagree with you as somehow less than Christian. It is a typical trick that deconstructionists have tried to play on traditionalists for years. It has worked, sorry to say, but I would hope that you would no longer use it.

Dan Lauffer