Catholic Sensibility

If the last sections have been optimistic about the possibilities of universal/individual collaboration, Pope Paul offers serious cautions to those who sever ties with the universal Church:

64. But this enrichment requires that the individual Churches should keep their profound openness towards the universal Church. It is quite remarkable, moreover, that the most simple Christians, the ones who are most faithful to the Gospel and most open to the true meaning of the Church, have a completely spontaneous sensitivity to this universal dimension. They instinctively and very strongly feel the need for it, they easily recognize themselves in such a dimension. They feel with it and suffer very deeply within themselves when, in the name of theories which they do not understand, they are forced to accept a Church deprived of this universality, a regionalist Church, with no horizon.

True of some Christians, but not all. In the intervening forty years, I’d say some aspects of church life almost invite the breaking away, and we’ve seen schisms on both the traditional and progressive side of Roman Catholicism. For as many people who feel the need for a universal connection, I’d say there are others who value the intellectual and pragmatic aspects of flying with a flock of like-minded believers.

The real spiritual danger is avoiding extremism of any kind, something that the balance of other individual Churches, in addition to the universal, can assist us.

As history in fact shows, whenever an individual Church has cut itself off from the universal Church and from its living and visible center- sometimes with the best of intentions, with theological, sociological, political or pastoral arguments, or even in the desire for a certain freedom of movement or action- it has escaped only with great difficulty (if indeed it has escaped) from two equally serious dangers. The first danger is that of a withering isolationism, and then, before long, of a crumbling away, with each of its cells breaking away from it just as it itself has broken away from the central nucleus. The second danger is that of losing its freedom when, being cut off from the center and from the other Churches which gave it strength and energy, it finds itself all alone and a prey to the most varied forces of slavery and exploitation.

These are two significant dangers. We see the increasing tendency online for conservative Catholics to split and divide, and for various factions to align under certain leaders.

The second danger can be more subtle. But it involves cutting oneself off from unpleasant and challenging input, but that which might be rather healthy to engage.

The more an individual Church is attached to the universal Church by solid bonds of communion, in charity and loyalty, in receptiveness to the Magisterium of Peter, in the unity of the lex orandi which is also the lex credendi, in the desire for unity with all the other Churches which make up the whole- the more such a Church will be capable of translating the treasure of faith into the legitimate variety of expressions of the profession of faith, of prayer and worship, of Christian life and conduct and of the spiritual influence on the people among which it dwells. The more will it also be truly evangelizing, that is to say, capable of drawing upon the universal patrimony in order to enable its own people to profit from it, and capable too of communicating to the universal Church the experience and the life of this people, for the benefit of all.

This is true. One single factor comes to mind: that a small, splintered, narcissistic remnant will not be attractive to all believers. I’d venture to say that any community, parish, diocese, internet, universal Church, that does not attract all kinds of people with all sorts of gifts, abilities, and sensibilities, has already veered, even if slightly, into the ditch and off the track of catholicity and universality.

Your comments?

Vatican Insider reports that Holy Land Catholics will join their Orthodox sisters and brothers in observing Easter on 5 May 2013.

Is the Catholic/Orthodox separation on Easter a big deal? About half the time the dates are separated by a week. One-fourth of the time, as in 2013, it’s about a month. Otherwise we’re aligned 25% of the time. How did things get out of whack on such a basic Christian thing?

The difference between the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582, and how Easter is placed as the Sunday after the first full moon of Spring.

Why now and not earlier? Who knows? Vatican II endorsed the idea of a single celebration of Easter across Christendom. The last bishops’ synod endorsed the idea, repeatedly. Obviously, we’d need to get all of the Reformation Churches with the program, too. A lot of them took a century or two to adopt Pope Gregory XIII’s initiative. Britain and its colonies came aboard in 1752. Here’s a good trivia question: which was the last US state to align with the other states in the Gregorian reform? Hint: it was before its own statehood.

Here is the 2010 USCCB statement on a shared Easter.

Hopefully this development will cut down on fistfights and other unseemly behavior.

Statues and colored windows seemed to be everywhere in the Catholic West. Iconography in the East. Roman Catholicism has been open to more possibilities in the past two generations, and this has enriched the life of the Church.

§ 135 § Reflecting the awareness of the Communion of Saints, the practice of incorporating symbols of the Trinity, images of Christ, the Blessed Mother, the angels, and the saints into the design of a church creates a source of devotion and prayer for a parish community and should be part of the design of the church.(Book of Blessings 1258) Images can be found in stained glass windows, on wall frescos and murals, and as statues and icons. Often these images depict scenes from the bible or from the lives of the saints and can be a source of instruction and catechesis as well as devotion. Since the Eucharist unites the Body of Christ, including those who are not physically present, the use of images in the church reminds us that we are joined to all who have gone before us, as well as to those who now surround us.

An Orthodox priest once gave a moving presentation on the view of images in churches. He spoke of the iconostasis as well as the windows in his cathedral, and explained the sense his parishioners received of being surrounded by the saints in their worship. And that “enclosure” had many meanings: protection, formation in the faith, and most of all a reminder of the timelessness of liturgy and that Christians join across the ages in praise of the eternal God. I remember few details, but for me it was a change in my own perspective about the images of saints.

My own boyhood parish church had windows that were impressive, statues less so. (Though the Infant of Prague informed me of the liturgical season before each Mass–it was carefully vested in colors that matched the clergy vestments.) The Lourdes grotto was reproduced in a fifteen-foot wide tableau. Aside from flowers to Mary, I never had a sense the artwork was much more than a comforting decoration, a badge of Catholicism, and not-Protestantism. It seems that sacred images should be “engaged” spiritually. What do you think?

All texts from Built of Living Stones are copyright © 2000, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.