Loading ...
I might as well call this post “Cornell Catholic Community on Summorum pontificum” since it’s unlikely that they’ll ever address the matter publicly at greater length. Otherwise, this is Msgr. Robert Smith - a.k.a. Fr. Bob - meditating on the theme: ex pluribus unum (everything in bold or bolded is mine - the paragraph in italics is his):
I suppose everyone will recognize the English translation of the epigram on the Great Seal of the United States (the goal of unity in plurality). [Highly unlikely. It was at a Mass at the CCC a few years ago that a damsel, provocatively dressed, stood at the lectern and announced "a reading from the Book of job", as in, "looking for a job", "can't find a job", etc. I don't know if his parenthesis is meant to be a gloss on the Latin, which in any case does not mean "the goal of unity in plurality".] What originally referred to the forming of one nation from many independent states has come, over time, to apply to our experience of forming one American culture from the many traditions brought here by immigrants [which is, of course, precisely what the Founding Founders envisioned]; to forming one common future from many histories, etc. [Pay attention now:] The phrase can also express one of the most important developments in contemporary religious life: the recognition that differences in religious faith and religious experience need not be the source of hostility, separation and violence, but can be a challenge to deepening each of the traditions while forming a common human society. [Indeed. This is a development in contemporary religious life? Obviously, the formation of a common human society is our ultimate goal, in fact, was the goal of Christ when He founded the Church and gave the Apostles the mission of converting and baptizing all nations, saying, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; and who does not believe will be damned."] We know that implementing this recognition is an enormously complex and challenging task. [True, although the Freemasons have been remarkably successful to date.]
Within the Catholic Church, also, there has always been diversity: from the Patristic Age until today, there have been diverse schools of theological reflection; [A remark designed to soften our resistance to the inroads of heresy.] there have been, and continue to be created, new religious communities arising from different spiritual charisms; there are different spiritualities, forms of prayer and devotion; there have been for centuries, different rites for celebrating the Eucharist (recently, the Holy Father even made the decision to authorize two forms of the one Roman Rite for celebrating The Eucharist and other Sacraments).
Catholics do not need to look hard for diversity in our Church, but we are challenged [one of my favorite buzz words], as we have always been, to respond to the will of Christ and, through the gift of the Spirit, make of our diversity: one Church, one Body of Christ, one People of God.[This is theologically unhelpful, at the least. We don't make the Church, we don't make the Body of Christ, and I, for one, have absolutely no interest in participating in anything going by the name of "the People of God". Rather, the Church forms us, Christ converts us, changes us.]
This challenge, to discover within our diversity the sources of unity, exists at every level of the Church’s life [this has to be an overstatement] and in every one of the local communities in which the mystery of the Church is being lived out. As we wrote several weeks ago, the Catholic Common Ground Initiative is one way in which this challenge is being met in the American Catholic community. This Sunday, after the 10:30 AM Mass, we will continue the dialogue we began a few weeks ago about how Catholic undergraduates understand what it means to belong to the Church. [This one should be rich! If they can stay long enough to talk before hurrying home to watch Desperate Housewives!] Everyone is welcome to remain in the ATH Auditorium after Mass this Sunday to join the conversation.
We would also be very interested to hear any ideas – however initial – you may have about other ways in which we could pursue unity in our diversity in the Cornell Catholic Community. [Great! Let the People of God gather every Sunday, as they live and learn what it means to be the mystery of the Church, and challenge themselves to participate in the Holy Eucharistic Feast, that great thanksgiving banquet, celebrated according to the extraordinary, extra special form of the Mass, presided over by one of our gracious and tolerant, challenge-meeting chaplains.]
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Second reference in a week to Desperate Housewives as the Cornell undergrad’s preferred alternative to Catholicism - by this blog.
Yes, and with good reason. Is there any reason you mention it?
“What originally referred to the forming of one nation from many independent states [er, colonies]”
Er… states actually. “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled…” (from the Declaration of Independence).
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
This is an important (political) conservative point actually, because it emphasizes the sovreignty of the states and the federalist nature of our system of government in which only certain powers are delegated to the federal government by the states and certain matters not properly the purview of the federal government may be or in the past were allowed to be considered by the states, for instance, the establishment of religion at the time of the Founding. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but before the doctrine of incorporation, states had religious tests, etc.
When did they go from being colonies to being states?
July 4, 1776. Final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
No good reason. It’s just nice to know that the folks at the Society are such experts on the ways of the undergraduate heart.
If you didn’t have the Cornell Catholic Community, you’d have to invent it.
Franciscus reminded me tonight - the bit about Desperate Housewives isn’t an educated guess; it was something confirmed by a survey the results of which were delivered to us via the CCC’s ever entertaining weekly bulletin.
Indeed, the Desperate Housewives reference did not originate with us. This preference was actually expressed by a good percentage of the Cornell Catholic Community, as the bulletin once informed us.
Desperate Housewife, are you familiar at all with the CCC? If so, by all means, offer your opinion of the situation. If not, then please, spare us the snarky remarks.
Yes, I’m familiar with the CCC, as well as the Cornell Society. And I’m inclined toward the latter, but - on the topic of snarky-ness - I must admit that the “I’m smart, you’re dumb” or, conversely “I’m holy, you’re a heretic” absolutism of this website is a real drag sometimes.
Well… but what to do if the leadership of the CCC is both dumb and heretical? Pointing this out needn’t necessarily imply that we think ourselves either brilliant or remarkably holy.
I don’t know; I agree that the negativity of traditional Catholics can at times feel oppressive, but I’m not above laughing at the CCC when they say truly ridiculous things. It’s the least they deserve for all the damage they’ve done. Take it in a Chestertonian spirit.
I’ll take in in a Chestertonian spirit, sure. But as a point of personal preference, I really wish that traditional Catholics - and I’m one - would spend more time being positive, publicly, about their faith. This site does that, to be sure. But again - and I say this as a friend - the calling-out of Cornell undergrads with heresy talk and, well, insults, does not. I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t exactly a paragon of Catholic morality as an undergrad, and I needed a helping hand and a positive example to bring me to my current faith. Speaking for myself, only, calling out my television habits and hippie priest would NOT have been the way to do that.
I’m absolutely with you on the need for positive words about traditional Catholicism. It’s hard to sell a group whose strongest identifying feature is hatred of Vatican II.
But there are appropriate times for making fun of people. I’d certainly be gentler when talking to a particular undergraduate face-to-face, but the truth is, 1) I don’t imagine very many people connected with the CCC actually read this blog, but 2) if they do, you’d probably need something pretty strong to make an impression. Some humor is important in this context to keep from seeming merely mean-spirited. But I honestly believe that a biting satire is more likely to have an effect on a whimsically passing undergrad than a gentle suggestion that perhaps the clergy involved with the CCC aren’t everything they should be. You must keep in mind that, in order to do anything about the situation in Ithaca, the individual must be rather determined. There’s no convenient alternative, and the chaplains there are not flexible about changing. Gentle advice may be shrugged off with “oh, there might be something in it, but what can I do?” Sterner words have a chance of sticking.
It’s a tactical question. I can respect that different people will favor different approaches. But Chesterton seems to have demonstrated that the “biting satire” approach can get some good results.