A while back I got it in my head to read more from those theologians who were at Vatican II, but who represent the side of orthodoxy, consistency with Tradition, etc. I'm talking about people like Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthazar, etc. Lately I've been reading Henri de Lubac, and he's got a couple books called, Paradoxes of Faith and More Paradoxes - which are really just a collection of his musings, often in the spirit of embracing paradox, or as I like to do, setting the extremes against each other and looking for the balance in the middle. Right now I'm going through More Paradoxes and a lot of it was written soon after Vatican II - and this is my point for bringing it up - when you read it, if you didn't know when it was written, you could easily think it was written this year. All the things you might think of when you read my title for this post: "the current crisis of the Church" - it's as if what de Lubac wrote almost 60 years ago fits and is just as relevant as if it was written yesterday. Which, I suppose, is actually encouraging, because whatever you think of when you hear "the current crisis of the Church" - we've been through it before, we've gotten through it before, and the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church. In fact, reading about the aftermath of Vatican II, you could make the case that things are even more hopeful now, since a lot of the insanity among the clergy back then is dying away and being replaced by a generation of clergy more committed to the faith.
Having said that, in one of his musings de Lubac raised a point which made me as the reader say, "what's the deal with Germany?" De Lubac refers to the Protestant Reformation, and the subsequent crisis of Biblical scholarship in Germany. He doesn't mention the Nazis and the Holocaust, but that was obviously very much in opposition to Christian faith. And he could not have anticipated the drama unfolding in Germany now, with the possibility of a new schism. So it made me think, what is it about Germany?
Of course, we can't ignore the fact that the homeland of both de Lubac and Congar is now one of the most secular countries, and even in Italy, most people don't actually go to church, but in these countries it all seems more passive.
And then yesterday I was reading a master's thesis by a student, who wrote on the history of the conversion of Scandanavia to Christianity. The story is one which makes you think - so how did these countries get to be so secular that they are now anti-Christian. Especially Iceland, which was not converted at the point of a sword, or even by missionaries - the first mainlanders who went to Iceland found Irish monks there, and although they chased the Irish monks off the island, they VOTED to become Christian.
So maybe the point is that crisis itself is not something that stands out from the time around it as particularly threatening - but rather crisis is something that comes in waves and moves around from one place to another, but never really goes away. I recently finished a lot of research for a historical fiction project in which I was reading a lot of Celtic theology, and I came upon a really interesting phrase: "this year's plague" - now, on one level, there were a lot of plagues back then, but the vibe you get from this phrase in the literature is more like, "oh well, that's just this year's plague." As if to say, every year has its plague, and this current crisis is just the plague for this year. Next year there will be a different one, and no year will be without one.
So, whatever the current crisis of the Church is, it's just this year's plague.
Here's a short (about a minute) video I took going around the Holy Column in the church of Santa Prassede. This is the column that Jesus was tied to when he was scourged by Pontius Pilate. They don't always have the barrier down, so you usually don't get to see it from all the way around. I wanted to get video of the whole thing all the way around because I ran across a note in an ancient document that said that those who made a pilgrimage (at that time to the Holy Land, since it was still in Jerusalem) could visit the Holy Column, and could see marks left from the hands of Jesus where he gripped it as he was being whipped. I assume that this is pious legend, but I figured since the column has that dark & light marble, maybe there's a place where the dark parts look like hands. I did not see it, but if you do, let me know!
I mentioned in The Journey that I wrote a song based on Isaiah 2, which is one of my favorite OT passages:
In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain, and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!
I hope you like the song!
Here is our next set of texts - as we get into John chapter 6, we first encounter Jesus feeding the multitudes - in this case 5,000 families!
Now, as you know, there is also an account o Jesus feeding 4,000, and so you may also know that some scholars might speculate that these are just different versions of the same story that circulated and were handed down orally, until they were written down. Even the fact that both stories occur in the same gospel would not stop that kind of speculation. So I thought the first question I would have to ask was whether the Church fathers thought this was one event or two - BUT (and you see where this is going) I forgot that Jesus himself makes reference to two separate events (in Matthew 16 and in Mark 8) so there is no question for the Church fathers - these are two separate events. So it seems that Jesus performed this sign (miracle) of the feeding of the multitudes on two occasions. It's not just one event told two different ways, and it's also ...
My voice was still recovering from a bad cold, so not sounding my best, but this was a great conversation about pilgrimage, for the Jubilee year - more of this coming in other interviews! (FYI, I think I was the third of three guests that day, so you will have to fast forward to find me)
It seems that one way or another we need to talk about different kinds, or different levels of heresy. What I have been calling heresy vs. heterodoxy, others call heresy on fundamental doctrines vs. heresy on less fundamental doctrines. In other words, Heresy with a capital H (over fundamental doctrines like the Trinity and christology) are the kinds of heresies that move one outside the boundaries of what Christianity is, and that's because the very definition of Christianity is defined according to these fundamental doctrines. To refuse to sign the Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325, or the Council of Constantinople in 381 - and indeed to reject any of the contents of the Creed today - means that a person is NOT a Christian.
So are the non-chalcedonians, such as the miaphysites (including St. Gregory of Narek, and today's Coptic Christians) - are they heretics? Well, like it is with a lot of things, that depends on your definition of heresy. If you include in your definition of ...
