Local Flavor

My local paper has run a few AP articles on Summorum Pontificum bringing the confusion closer to home. Hence, this response from a local pastor, worthy of a quick read.

It's Not You, It's Me

Via Amy Welborn, comes this refreshing take on the recent set of responses put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: from a Southern Baptist Seminary Professor.

I've often thought about ecumenism in terms of more basic human relations. The problem with ecumenical dialogue is the same problem experienced by any couple going through a break-up (and I've had my share). The parties, emotionally attached and suffering from pride or hurt or any other perfectly human feeling, seem always to error to one extreme or the other: that is, they either lash out and unjustly lay all the blame on the opposing side; or they instead try to take the others' hurt as their own responsibility and apply, well, the "it's not you, it's me" routine.

Why do people still use the same old worn-out routine, when everyone knows it's a lie? A person will never respond to the "it's not you, it's me" routine, because they know that there's obviously some part of the break-up that is their responsibility. And that's why honesty is the best policy. Perhaps a relationship can be mended if both parties will honestly and maturely accuse one another of real inadequacies or insufficiency. Otherwise, neither knows how or why to change. Resentment sets in, pride is stirred up by patronization, and finally each bids the other good riddance.

The gentleman who wrote the piece above obviously knows the fallacies of the "it's not you, it's me" routine. He's not saying - and neither am I - that we should let our ecumenical dialogue decay into name-calling and finger-pointing. But true relationships need honesty and candidness. We are going to get nowhere if we simply shower one another with praises in celebration of what we do share in common; for it is not that which keeps us apart, but rather our real differences. If no mention is made of these, we are left the frustrated receivers of the it's-not-you-it's-me rhetoric, wondering, "Why then, if you're solely to blame, don't you fix this so that we can be together? Why, then, is there any need for dialogue at all, which is two sided, if the blame is all on one side? Why should I accuse myself, uncertain as yet as to what it is with which you find fault? For surely, there is something unspoken which you hold against me and it is upon that which this whole situation turns."

And so it is. We can apologize for the Inquisition and Queen Mary's reign 'til we're blue in the face, and still there will be those who deny the Truth as we see it - the Truth which has never depended in any substantial way upon our conduct who profess it, any more than the Pope's own supremacy depends upon the personal quality of the man who bears the yoke of that office. And while the Church acknowledges the failings in the transmission of the Truth as a fault wholly belonging to its members, it is still She who represents that Truth in its fullest form while this world lasts, and it is a fault to be acknowledged that other do not recognize Her signs as the undefiled Bride of Christ.

I hope and pray that an honest study of these recent responses, and a review of the material to which they make reference (particularly Dominus Iesus) will open doors to a true ecumenism, leading the various Churches and "ecclesial communities" to an honest understanding of where they stand in relationship to one another and to the Truth that comes from Christ Jesus.

Where Have I Heard This Before...?

With obeisance to Fr. Z., I must direct your attention to what the infamous Sister Joan Chittister has to say about Summorum Pontificum.

Now, I know I've heard all of this somewhere before...

Ah, yes, that was it.

Or maybe it was the old people at the local diner complaining that they missed the early bird special (while the poor young girl behind the podium tries to explain that this diner never had such a special, but they must be thinking of another establishment).

And then there's this guy as well. What drama! I don't know whether the performance in the video above or the one in this article is more over-done. I have to agree with Mark Shea that "[t]here's a jittery totalitarianism behind such sentiments."

But I guess these are growing pains. And the new document from the CDF today is getting as much a lashing in the media as the former one. The popular press wants to make it out that the Vatican has dealt a one-two punch to all that the Council accomplished for ecumenism. But I think that we're seeing some movement in exactly the true Spirit behind the documents of the Second Vatican Council. And I think I'll say more about that tomorrow. For now, I'm still trying to digest: it's been a busy couple of weeks for the Holy See and St. Blog's.

When It Rains...

... it pours!

VATICAN CITY, JUL 10, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." It is dated June 29, Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, Apostles, and bears the signatures of Cardinal William Joseph Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., respectively prefect and secretary of the congregation.

Of course, Gerald did let us know this was coming.

Well, the Pope probably figured we needed plenty to talk about while he was on vacation.

I Brake for Mimes

When I first saw the discussion taking place over at Fr. Z.'s about the new document, I had no idea of the scale of this project. Father Z's comments focus on the translation, notable for its somewhat hasty use of the word "tramp," but I'm left wondering about the document itself and how many people's time and effort have gone toward the publication. In the preface, Cardinal Martino outlines it thus:

The first part is devoted to road users (motorists, lorry drivers, etc.) and railway users, and to the people who work in the various related services. Parts two and three concern street women and street children, respectively, and the fourth regards the homeless (tramps).

This Document is dedicated to all the above-mentioned people, but account should also be taken of pavement dwellers and street vendors, as well as the link between the road and tourists, pilgrims, gypsies, circus and fairground workers and street actors.

Sounds like a wordlist for a creative-writing workshop run by some of our more popular hymnal publishers. I'm sure we'll see a supplemental within the coming year.