An Aid To Memory

Here is what I have been reading:

A "catholic" going against clear ancient and modern Catholic consensus to justify 20th century Protestant mainline innovations? Yep…check out the Anglican Scotist’s recent post. Just so you know, I don’t always agree with a lot of what the Scotist posts, but I do respect his attempts to engage theological and moral issues.

Unless I am misreading his post, my biggest issues with his recent post are a)his confidence in his own ability to discern the mind of Christ (or at least confidently discern where Christ’s mind is not), not to mention he doesn’t tell us exactly how to find the mind of Christ, and b)his willingness to so readily dismiss the Catholic consensus when it doesn’t suit his beliefs. I guess I take issue with another point as well: The Catholic consensus is not a democratic super-majority, but the Church upholding and contextualizing Apostolic Tradition, as the truth unfolds in a variety of time periods and contexts. The Church has resisted making popular beliefs dogma if they contradict Apostolic Tradition, no matter how popular. Also, if the Catholic consensus consisted of the views of the majority, we would be Arians today, who were in the majority for a fairly long time in the 4th century. Yet despite Arianism’s massive popularity among the clergy, laity, and bishops, many Church Fathers bitterly resisted it, and the Church councils of the time came out against it, although compromising to some degree with moderates on both sides.

I have no reason to respond in more detail because replies to his recent post have been posted over at Ithilien and Pontifications, and they do a fine job.

In the news, Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito seems to oppose abortion. Good for him. Since when did supporting the right to suck a fetus out a woman’s womb become the litmus test for being on the nation’s highest court?

I have added a link to a great blog:

The New Liturgical Movement

It is a blog "dedicated to promoting the New Liturgical Movement called for by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in all the sacred arts and in the unity of legitimate liturgical diversity."

Sounds like a worthy goal to me. While I am less critical of the so-called Novus Ordo than others, I certainly believe that Catholic liturgical "reform" went too far following Vatican II, although our reforms are still less offensive than the newest Protestant liturgies which have been decimated by the inclusive language police. I think that an ancient-future approach to the liturgy is in order. By this I mean developing a liturgy more faithful to past forms, and allowing the celebration of the older liturgies, without being stuck in a past period.

I am just thinking out loud here. I am used to framing my conversion to Catholicism and the meaning of life so-to-speak in terms a Catholic or Protestant can understand. I know how to speak both languages. I can explain the Catholic faith in light of mainline Protestantism; I can even do so using the terms and ideas of either the liberal or conservative perspective in the mainlines. I have trouble, however, effectively reaching non-Christians, or those nominally faithful. I just don’t speak that language very well.

I asked a good friend of mine, "how do we do it?" "How do we reach those who have no background in the faith?" These days, we can’t throw around basic Christian terms like "communion," "Christ," "son of God," let alone the more advanced ones like "Eucharist," or "communion of saints." It used to be even non-Christians would know Christian terms and ideas just because our culture was Christian. Now, this is not true. So, how do we reach out to non-Christians?

Well, I think we have to borrow from evangelicals on this one. Let me quote something I came up with that I might say to a non-Christian who was curious about Christianity:

Your life? Well, it has been a mess for awhile hasn’t it? You know, Christians believe that without God your life can get in a lot of spiritual disorder, bad things happen, and it is easy to lose hope in your life. Becoming Christian doesn’t mean all of your problems will melt away, but that hole in your soul, the ‘I am seeking something, but I just can’t find it’ feeling…well…we can help with that. Let me explain a little about what we believe about God. God is love and wants to reveal himself to you. God has different ways of doing this. One way is prayer, another is the Bible, and another is the Church. Why don’t you come to Church with me some Sunday and I can explain a little more afterward.

Too simple? Maybe. Even reading it makes me think "man is that way too simplistic." However, where else do we start? Not everybody has paid for a degree in Theology. Most people could care less about our theological controversies. But…they feel that their lives are a mess, and they are looking for answers; just look at how popular self-help gurus and books are! In response to this, we have to emphasize the Christian message of hope, yet set ourselves apart from the easy-answers crowd (which includes some "pop" Christianity). And even though most of us with Theological training don’t think in terms of "following God=alleviating our problems, spiritual or otherwise," most people do. Most people are so overwhelmed (or underwhelmed) because of modern life, that the holes in the souls are larger than the holes in the ozone layer.

Who knows. Any thoughts or ideas?