After Prayers, We Meditated Further While Picking Grains of Erionite
The reason for the last post was half-humorous and half-serious. Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI's (it's going to take some time)) first request was for prayers, and I find it easier to pray in Latin than in English these days, because in English, my brain tends to skim. With Latin, I read at just the right pace to mean earnestly what I am saying.
The first question everyone must be asking (Acousmatist-Logopoet especially) is why is an Anglican so obsessed with the papal election. Admittedly, the Economist proposed than an Anglican be elected Pope, but what should one expect from an English publication that supports the welfare of the homo oeconomicus before all else? I'll answer indirectly.
First, I can't say I was pleased to hear of the election on first instinct. But I know that the Spirit blows where it wills and I can't just say to God, let my concerns alter the fullness of your plans. But honestly, I can't immediately cheer the apostolopoesis of a man who directly has encouraged schism within my church (googling "Ratzinger and Plano meeting" should bring up the right stuff) . I feel like Paul. I love Peter. Sometimes, I even like him, but I will be tempted to speak anathemas against anyone who brings what he believes into my churches in Asia. Of course, there's selfishness in Paul and me. The Church belongs to Christ, but Paul at least had the right to fight Petrine error.
To some extent I can sympathize with the current Roman Catholic position on ecumenical dialogue in the midst of the present ecclesiological, sexual ethical, and nearly Christological controversy in the Anglican Communion. No one wants to talk to anyone who is speaking out of both sides of his mouth or any group that is doing likewise. The Communion should speak with one voice and until that time, it may be pointless for the Byzantines and the Latins to talk with us.
But Ratzinger's encouragement to the dissidents in the American church is tacit encouragement to the Dominionists who believe in a broadly applied death penalty, though I am sure Ratzinger simply does not know some of their ideological underpinnings. It also encourages the very kind of ecclesiastical defiance that Ratzinger wouldn't want in his own church. For Episcopalians, whether it is right in this or not, General Convention is our source of Magisterium. By basically saying to the ACC/Network/FiF/Dominionist Cabal that the Doors of Rome always are open to you, Ratzinger may be welcoming people with a great deal of trouble with authority and a tendency to use large amounts of cash and the legal system to subvert authority. By entering into the crisis, Ratzinger has made himself an honorary Anglican (because he essentially has interfered in dioceses not under his own authority and offered faculties, the Anglican Rite, and alternative episcopal jurisdiction to the dissidents, especially if he uses the Chair of Peter to further his influence.) Peter Akinola and Robert Duncan have acted likewise.
That said, I must thank God for the election of Benedict XVI, because God is ever good. And as I was instructed in school, I must seek the good in every person, the Inner Light that enlightens the whole world. In this light, I see a man with firm principles that are strongly against relativism and "modernism." While I find the latter crusade based on somewhat erroneous principles, I must praise anyone who is committed to the value of the Christian faith and the Western Canon even to the point of quiet fanaticism. It is courageous and noble. It makes people say what they really think and make sure what they really think is said in their name, and makes their actions clear. Indeed, the best among such people act with their entire being. If it produces a narrowness in view, the very authenticity of word and action makes their limited scope apparent and easier to critique. I just pray he listens, not necessarily to the slew of whiny complaints he is sure to hear, but to the earnest attempts some hopefully will make to ask if his faith truly seeks the mind of Christ.
Second, Ratzinger is a scholar of great renown, not only an esteemed colleague of some of the finest Catholic theologians of recent years but a theological giant in his own right. Of course, I disagree with him, but I feel he now more than ever is worth reading. Between John Milburn and Joseph Ratzinger, I will have a full reading list for some time (and the celestial spheres will take up most of my time, God willing, for the rest of my life). His dissertation subjects were Augustine and Bonaventure, both of whose musings on the unity of truth are at the foundation of the theological tradition with which I seek to identify myself. As a scholar, he feels like a crusty great-uncle. I shout at Augustine all the time. Ratzinger will get some shouting, too.
Third, most of the Catholics I know my age either will love and agree with Benedict XVI or will love and still disagree with Benedict XVI. They deserve a connection with the Pope in both Word and Sacrament, as they had with John Paul II.
ESA(20050419.2)
P.B. I have a lot of work and stuff to do now, so please talk among yourselves. And if some people are feeling they raised a religious fanatic who spends a lot of time dealing with the Church and not enough with Jesus, please be assured that I will be doing some Jesus work on Saturday (and speaking from the heart more, too.)
The reason for the last post was half-humorous and half-serious. Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI's (it's going to take some time)) first request was for prayers, and I find it easier to pray in Latin than in English these days, because in English, my brain tends to skim. With Latin, I read at just the right pace to mean earnestly what I am saying.
The first question everyone must be asking (Acousmatist-Logopoet especially) is why is an Anglican so obsessed with the papal election. Admittedly, the Economist proposed than an Anglican be elected Pope, but what should one expect from an English publication that supports the welfare of the homo oeconomicus before all else? I'll answer indirectly.
First, I can't say I was pleased to hear of the election on first instinct. But I know that the Spirit blows where it wills and I can't just say to God, let my concerns alter the fullness of your plans. But honestly, I can't immediately cheer the apostolopoesis of a man who directly has encouraged schism within my church (googling "Ratzinger and Plano meeting" should bring up the right stuff) . I feel like Paul. I love Peter. Sometimes, I even like him, but I will be tempted to speak anathemas against anyone who brings what he believes into my churches in Asia. Of course, there's selfishness in Paul and me. The Church belongs to Christ, but Paul at least had the right to fight Petrine error.
To some extent I can sympathize with the current Roman Catholic position on ecumenical dialogue in the midst of the present ecclesiological, sexual ethical, and nearly Christological controversy in the Anglican Communion. No one wants to talk to anyone who is speaking out of both sides of his mouth or any group that is doing likewise. The Communion should speak with one voice and until that time, it may be pointless for the Byzantines and the Latins to talk with us.
But Ratzinger's encouragement to the dissidents in the American church is tacit encouragement to the Dominionists who believe in a broadly applied death penalty, though I am sure Ratzinger simply does not know some of their ideological underpinnings. It also encourages the very kind of ecclesiastical defiance that Ratzinger wouldn't want in his own church. For Episcopalians, whether it is right in this or not, General Convention is our source of Magisterium. By basically saying to the ACC/Network/FiF/Dominionist Cabal that the Doors of Rome always are open to you, Ratzinger may be welcoming people with a great deal of trouble with authority and a tendency to use large amounts of cash and the legal system to subvert authority. By entering into the crisis, Ratzinger has made himself an honorary Anglican (because he essentially has interfered in dioceses not under his own authority and offered faculties, the Anglican Rite, and alternative episcopal jurisdiction to the dissidents, especially if he uses the Chair of Peter to further his influence.) Peter Akinola and Robert Duncan have acted likewise.
That said, I must thank God for the election of Benedict XVI, because God is ever good. And as I was instructed in school, I must seek the good in every person, the Inner Light that enlightens the whole world. In this light, I see a man with firm principles that are strongly against relativism and "modernism." While I find the latter crusade based on somewhat erroneous principles, I must praise anyone who is committed to the value of the Christian faith and the Western Canon even to the point of quiet fanaticism. It is courageous and noble. It makes people say what they really think and make sure what they really think is said in their name, and makes their actions clear. Indeed, the best among such people act with their entire being. If it produces a narrowness in view, the very authenticity of word and action makes their limited scope apparent and easier to critique. I just pray he listens, not necessarily to the slew of whiny complaints he is sure to hear, but to the earnest attempts some hopefully will make to ask if his faith truly seeks the mind of Christ.
Second, Ratzinger is a scholar of great renown, not only an esteemed colleague of some of the finest Catholic theologians of recent years but a theological giant in his own right. Of course, I disagree with him, but I feel he now more than ever is worth reading. Between John Milburn and Joseph Ratzinger, I will have a full reading list for some time (and the celestial spheres will take up most of my time, God willing, for the rest of my life). His dissertation subjects were Augustine and Bonaventure, both of whose musings on the unity of truth are at the foundation of the theological tradition with which I seek to identify myself. As a scholar, he feels like a crusty great-uncle. I shout at Augustine all the time. Ratzinger will get some shouting, too.
Third, most of the Catholics I know my age either will love and agree with Benedict XVI or will love and still disagree with Benedict XVI. They deserve a connection with the Pope in both Word and Sacrament, as they had with John Paul II.
ESA(20050419.2)
P.B. I have a lot of work and stuff to do now, so please talk among yourselves. And if some people are feeling they raised a religious fanatic who spends a lot of time dealing with the Church and not enough with Jesus, please be assured that I will be doing some Jesus work on Saturday (and speaking from the heart more, too.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home