Toleration and Zeal

[MichaelFilo]

Prior to beggining, I would like to say sorry for my lack of posting on PM, but I have had many reasons, not the least of which is finding the place of religion in my life when it is so clear that the plans others have for me detract from that rightous end. With that aside, I would like to say I missed you all.

Now, in the time of my absence I have done several things which have put into question my own zeal (which I have been ridiculed for as being mis-guided and praised by some as being a holy gift). i will not give an extended story, as that would really destroy the debate aspect. However, I shall summarize the certain events that have caused me to wonder:
The first and foremost is my first ever retreat. I spent a week in the basement of the most traditional churches in Jacksonville. I learned quite a few things and I also attended a Baptist service (of which I refused to participate referring to the Code of Canon Law, only to find JPII removed the condemnation of worshipping with Protestatns in the new 1983 version of the Code of Canon Law. I also went to an Episcopalean church where we learned about the female vicar's work with the poor in the area (which included the social outcasts who were also shunned). Later, we were to hear a Protestant minister of some sorts, I believe he was a pentecostal man, who gave an emotional speech on loving, not hating. Albiet, I was (and still am) too hard of heart to be swayed by emotional speeches that do nothing but play on the passions of men which are easily twisted to unrightous ends. However, these things added up. They came together when I compared these facts with the beliefs and faith of people my own age on the retreat. Most cared little about their faith. There were a few who were pushing for the liberal agenda to allow female preists in and such (even some of the volunteers on the retreat did the same). Then there was a girl who was going to go to school to be a nun, and her knowledge of the Bible and her positions were far from being called learned (although, I admired her willingness to listen and learn but for someone who will begin her religious studies next year, I was hoping a bit more interest was there). Then, we had two speakers come in who talked about the Catholic social teachings, basically, I learned the Church taught a quasi-socialistic doctrine in which instead of the government telling us to give to the poor and forcing lazy folk to work, we must give to the poor, and watch those men and women who do nothing live off our efforts and strivings never learning to better themselves. Then, those two men blurted out (although not part of the "discussion") that they believed in "Salvation for all" in the sense that all are saved. Well, I could listen to Protestant heretics and even attend their service without participating, but I would not stand in the chapel of my favorite church (although, the chapel hadn't been used in years for that end, there was a tabranacle still there) and listen to two heretics claiming to teach Catholic truths in the most vile way to the group without pouncing on them verbally and telling them off. It was by some restraint that I kept myself from calling them heretics then and there.

Anyways, I've spent most of my years being a Christian who saw zeal as the pinacle of love for the Faith. I always understood that to tolerate meant to lack zeal, for who could tolerate sin and tolerate people who rejected Christ and still say, "I am a Christian and am a messanger for Christ". No one at all. A Christian is a walking advertisement for Christ and must seek to convert the world to Him. Well, I entered my philosophy class this year (a brooding grounds for liberal ideologies and the teachigs of Satan) and found only one thing to be true: That the Catholic Faith is only one Faith among thousands of other faiths. It is overwhelming to understand how other faiths came into being, and then comparing them with our own, and then finding any real conviction that Catholicism is Truth. It helps even less when the contemporary Church begins to blur the distinctions between Catholics and non-Catholics, calling heretics our bretheren. I find very little room for zeal when both my Church and this world agree wholeheartedly (a horrible occassion, to say the least) that I must tolerate both infidel and heretic. So I pose the question, can one tolerate these errors and still claim to be zealous? IS it not zeal that always breeds intolerance. Did King Louis, a most zealous Saint, go on the Crusades because he felt the need to tolerate the infidel, or did he see the need to convert every single last one of them that he could? Or those martyrs who were put to death because they could not tolerate the Roman belief that the emporor is a god and would do him no homage, where they tolerant, or zealous? The two seem to be mutally exclusive, but I want to hear other's thoughts.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

From this Sunday's readings:
Ez 33:7-9

Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.

This is a powerful, powerful message to all of us, especially those of us blessed with the Truth, which is Christ. We have an awesome responsibility to bring light to the darkness and knowledge to the ignorant. If not, it is on our head. If someone is in a car accident, and you can help but you don't, you have sinned. Even if they are panicked and they don't know what's going on and they hit you or tell you to go away, you should still help them. Sometimes you must do things for people's own good, in spite of themselves. The ignorant cannot help their ignorance and it is our job to guide them. For we were there once.

And, look to the example of Christ:
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.

That sounds like zeal to me!!

Remember the parable of the dinner party, where people had to be forced to come to the dinner (which represented the Kingdom of God)

And of course:

He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there.
He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables,
and to those who sold doves he said, "Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a marketplace."
His disciples recalled the words of scripture, [b]"Zeal for your house will consume me." [/b]

And from Revelation:
To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: " 'The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God's creation, says this:
"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot.
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

And finally, read psalm 69. You are not the first to be scorned for your zeal.
"Because zeal for your house consumes me, I am scorned by those who scorn you. "

Be zealous!! With all your Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength!!

[argent_paladin]

The people you have talked to misunderstand the meaning of the word "tolerance". "Tolerate" does not mean "accept as true". In fact, it implies the opposite. To tolerate something is to find something objectionable but learn to coexist with it.
You "tolerate" cold. You have a "pain tolerance".
It comes from the latin "tolare" meaning "to bear, to endure". Thus, if you tolerate someone who is a heretic, it means that you think that they are wrong, but you will put up or endure their presence for the sake of a greater good (like peace).
It takes long cultivation of the virtue of prudence to discern what to tolerate and what not to tolerate. However, just because someone tolerates something, doesn't mean they aren't zealous. Christ tolerated the presence of sinners, the company of his betrayer, the humiliations of the cross, etc. Discernment will come in time. Be patient. But never accept a lie or deny the truth. Sometimes, however, it is better to be discrete or silent. Other times, we need to get out the whip.

[philothea]

Nice to see you back, Michael!

I am sorry your retreat turned out so bad. Sucky Catholics do immense damage. I wish they would at least go be sucky Protestants.

As for your question, knowing when to put up with something and when to try to change it is my hardest dilemma. I wish there were better guidelines for deciding.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

mikey,

are you a trad?

[MichaelFilo]

A) Argent_Paladin, thank you for the input, but now I have to ask you something. Since it seems your posts made me think a bit more on the subject, but aren't satisfactory to put me at ease. You say Jesus sat with sinners and even walked with the man who handed Him over, and that He tolerated them, but I beg to differ. The sinners he preached to like everyone else, and to the betraryer he didn't tolerate him, he submitted to him because it was neccessary for the salvation of the world. At any rate God gave Free Will to allow people to act as they chose, He didn't tolerate anyone, He made them like that (it was His design). Therefore, Jesus would be a poor example of toleration, as He is responsible for the whole Free Will thing. Besides, how do you account toleration when so many Saints destroyed the pagan statues of old, and who fought against the pagan myths at the cost of their lives. IT seems toleration is not something that Christians have done in the past. It is only in the wake of the democractic ideal, which neccessates toleration (As it encourages differing opinions) that toleration even became a virtue. I guess I see the role of zeal, and it's neccessity, but now the question remains, is it mutally exclusive from toleration? I cannot imagine standing by a heathen and not actively working towards his conversion and that of the whole world. Having to tolerate all ideas and opinoins sounds like the first step into falling from Grace. IT is precisly the toleration of different beliefs that allow beliefs to become blurry and smuged. I hope you can help me with this dilemma then.

As far as being a trad, I would have associated myself with the Traditional movement 6 months ago, but now that I see it, it's a joke. Clearly, the Church has left behind it's ancient roots and decided to stick to modernization with its V2 council. It IS a revolutionary document, as it puts the Church back in line with the world as it was since 1789, the year of the most hated and repulsive actions to occur in the West, the French Revolution. If, as the opening of the council mentions, was the intention of the council, then clealry the traditional movement is a dieing thing. I will always love the Tridentine above all others, and encourage statues and art. I will always be a monarchist at heart, but when the Church has abondoned this, it's luxurious history, to be reuinited with the world then I find it a dieing cause. So, I have to put down the title of "trad" and join the loathsome ranks of the "neo-conservatives". I just want to serve the Church faithfully in this day and age, not the Church of centuries past, nor the Church that could never exist, but the Church of the present. Sadly, that means I've had to part with alot of what I love. Now, some would claim that the Church hasn't chaged, but I'm no blind bat, it's catching up with the world as it's been in 1789, and thats a statement that directly refers to a changing Church.

I should note, I'd be a trad on the drop of a time if this weren't the case as I see it.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 6 2005, 04:10 PM']A) Argent_Paladin, thank you for the input, but now I have to ask you something. Since it seems your posts made me think a bit more on the subject, but aren't satisfactory to put me at ease. You say Jesus sat with sinners and even walked with the man who handed Him over, and that He tolerated them, but I beg to differ. The sinners he preached to like everyone else, and to the betraryer he didn't tolerate him, he submitted to him because it was neccessary for the salvation of the world. At any rate God gave Free Will to allow people to act as they chose, He didn't tolerate anyone, He made them like that (it was His design). Therefore, Jesus would be a poor example of toleration, as He is responsible for the whole Free Will thing. Besides, how do you account toleration when so many Saints destroyed the pagan statues of old, and who fought against the pagan myths at the cost of their lives. IT seems toleration is not something that Christians have done in the past. It is only in the wake of the democractic ideal, which neccessates toleration (As it encourages differing opinions) that toleration even became a virtue. I guess I see the role of zeal, and it's neccessity, but now the question remains, is it mutally exclusive from toleration? I cannot imagine standing by a heathen and not actively working towards his conversion and that of the whole world. Having to tolerate all ideas and opinoins sounds like the first step into falling from Grace. IT is precisly the toleration of different beliefs that allow beliefs to become blurry and smuged. I hope you can help me with this dilemma then.

As far as being a trad, I would have associated myself with the Traditional movement 6 months ago, but now that I see it, it's a joke. Clearly, the Church has left behind it's ancient roots and decided to stick to modernization with its V2 council. It IS a revolutionary document, as it puts the Church back in line with the world as it was since 1789, the year of the most hated and repulsive actions to occur in the West, the French Revolution. If, as the opening of the council mentions, was the intention of the council, then clealry the traditional movement is a dieing thing. I will always love the Tridentine above all others, and encourage statues and art. I will always be a monarchist at heart, but when the Church has abondoned this, it's luxurious history, to be reuinited with the world then I find it a dieing cause. So, I have to put down the title of "trad" and join the loathsome ranks of the "neo-conservatives". I just want to serve the Church faithfully in this day and age, not the Church of centuries past, nor the Church that could never exist, but the Church of the present. Sadly, that means I've had to part with alot of what I love. Now, some would claim that the Church hasn't chaged, but I'm no blind bat, it's catching up with the world as it's been in 1789, and thats a statement that directly refers to a changing Church.

I should note, I'd be a trad on the drop of a time if this weren't the case as I see it.

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]713499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mikey, good to hear from you - no need to apologize about not posting on phatmass, tho.

Sorry about your retreat experience (yeah, liberalism smells of elderberries!) and I'd definitely say attending protestant services should not be part of a Catholic retreat.

However, let's not confuse the actions of some liberal Catholics with the Church Herself.

You've made some pretty disturbing remarks about the Church. You seem to claim to feel compelled to follow the Church, though you seem to despise the current Church.
[quote] . . . when the Church has abondoned this, it's luxurious history, to be reuinited with the world then I find it a dieing cause. So, I have to put down the title of "trad" and join the loathsome ranks of the "neo-conservatives".[/quote]
Who exactly are these "loathsome" "neo-conservatives" whose ranks you say you must join? Are you referring to anyone who remains faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium? Is Pope Benedict XVI a "loathsome neoconservative"?

Do you beleive the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it?

Do you really think Christ's Church has changed her teachings?

True "toleration" does not mean accepting false teachings, nor that we should not try to convert others to the truth of the Faith. Whoever says such things is misrepresenting the Church's teachings.

What do you want/? For Catholics to run around smashing and burning protestant churches? Would this be an effective way to bring others to Christ's truth?

You seem very bitter and seriously confused about some very important things. I would recommend you find a good, orthodox priest, and get some spiritual counsel.

[morostheos]

I think the most important thing about zeal is that it should not only be zeal for personal holiness, but ZEAL FOR SOULS. In this, charity is paramount. To discern true charity takes lots and lots of prayer, but your zeal should be whatever it needs to be to bring the most people to an authentic, passionate love for Christ. Before you react, think about what would bring those around you closest to Christ and the Church? This involves meeting people where they are, and taking steps closer to Christ. I find the hardest part of this is remaining genuine and not skimping on your own orthodoxy, but also meeting people where they are. The Gospels provide the best examples of how to do this. Read them over and over, meditate on the passages where Christ interacted with sinners, see how you can apply them practically in your own life.

Remember, you are not at war with liberal Catholics/non-Catholics/non-Christians. You are at war with the devil, and the souls you meet are the prize you are trying to win for Christ!! Christ was willing to die for each one of those people who claimed heretical ideas to be the teachings of the Church. We should be willing to give our lives to save their souls as well.

Just my $.02

Edited September 7, 2005 by morostheos

[MichaelFilo]

Morostheos, I think I see where you are going with this. That is, zeal, when understood as you define it, would seem to be compatable with toleration since we must tolerate other's errors to get them to listen to the Truths of Christ. That makes sense, it's not really a conflict, but more of a meeting half-way. I vaguely remember Cam making a similiar statement long ago. At any rate, I'll think it over, but thank you for your input, since now I have something to consider.

Socrates, this thread isn't about me, it's about zeal and toleration. However, if you feel the need to discuss where I stand before the public, then I'm not one to restrain any attempt to put things in the light for all to see. I should note that you are right, I will always feel compelled to obey the Church and to carry out Her mission because my view of Her is and shall remain idealistic, because I learned of Her from my readings, not from any actual experience (and thank God for that twice over). Up until recently, I did not actually have to see the array of problems plaguing the Church firsthand (I saw a few mind you) and had the comfort of pointing them out online with everyone else on Phatmass without actually ever having to witness them. It wasn't until I got to see the damned reality of the situation that I began to realize my "trad" views of the Church and even the more conservative views on this site about the Church were actually a very poor reflection of the current "spirit" of the Church and it's members. But I won't rant, I'll just answer your questions as they came.

What are the ranks of neo-conservatism? Well, I'd hardly call my original position on the Church anti-pope or schismatic (although, I did fall into that silly little trap for a while). If the term neo-conservative refers to someone who is not a schismatic or a heretic then no, I do not loath joining a position I whole-heartedly agree with. However, I'd have to lie to myself to believe that the Church isn't changing before my eyes and that there are a few different views of the Church. The "trad" view which hopes to return the Church to it's beautiful place on top of a hill and make it very seperate from the world which is now seeks to catch up with. The "neo-conservative" who seeks only to defend the bare essentials of the faith and the morality of the Church. And then the "progressive" who seeks to change even that (albiet, never being successful, for it cannot be done). I never wanted to defend the essentials, I see the Church as much more than a compliation of 2000 years of Faith and morals, I instead see it as 2000 years of tradition, of Christs body in action, etc. I never wanted to be someone who turned his back on the ancient and beautiful aspects of the Church. And do I consider the current pope a neo-conservative? Why, yes. Can I blame him? No, he's got his hands full trying to get bishops to obey and orthodoxy to be the norm again among the people.

Yes I believe the Church is the same Church founded by Christ; indeed, thats the only reason I stick on, cause It seems some Anglicans are more alluring in the practices. Do I think the teachings changed? No, consistency is key here because it is the only arguement I have to put forth when Satan trys to show me that the Church is changing in many ways.

Do I want Catholics to smash the protestant houses of heresy? It's all too late; 400 years ago, it was plausible, but not anymore. Now, they are too entrenched and number far too many. And they now have gained a powerful ally, Lucifer, in their struggle to take a grasp in this world. The liberals can run over protestantism and push for whatever they want and get it in time (contraception for example) and any attempt by Catholics now to stop the Protestant whore from claiming more innocent souls would immediatly trigger that athiestic humanism that would immediatly question the Catholic Church's actions and immediatly put the desire of any Catholic to carry out the mission since most Catholics simply limp with a retarded leg when it comes to carrying out things in a manner of zeal since we are so busy in partaking in that humanism. Too many Catholics don't see the well-being of the soul to be more important than that of the body (not to be seperated in a dualistic sense, but we dont' get judged by the condition of our body when we die). So, it would be a grand failure for Catholicism to go out and try to stop Protestanism by force at this point, and that simply would just worsen things. So, long story short, no I don't desire Catholics to go take out the Protestant houses of worship, we missed our chance. It's too late to be effective to bring back those souls lost to Protestanism back into the Fold of the Good Shepard (which is distanct, because it is cared for by Peter and his line, the popes as Jesus commanded Peter to do thrice).

If you still see a flaw in what I said, point it out. If you don't, even better.

PS: I might of said heretic one too many times for the likings of the PM community, so if anyone would like me to stop, just go ahead and tell me and give me something else to call our seperated brethren, that would be great. I've come to realize some people get offended quite easily on PM when I use the tradionally correct term for this situation.

PPS: How did you fall out of favor with the powers that be on PM? Isee you are fishy.
God bless,
Mikey

Edited September 8, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[philothea]

Michael,

I am curious about the extent of your zeal. You seem bothered most by people who engage in flawed, mistaken, or bad religious practices. Do other failings bother you too?

Would you feel the need to denounce a married person who'd had an affair? A politican who took bribes? A shoplifter? Someone who failed to pay their taxes? Someone using unlicensed software? A person who lies about their age? Which wrongs stir you up -- all sins, or just church-related ones?

I'm not criticizing, just trying to understand better.

[MichaelFilo]

I dedicated my work on this Earth to carrying out the mission of the Church, the salvation of the souls, by way of Mary's guidance and aid. So, I suppose in my case, it's always anything that would make errors seem normal (I am by no means free of error, but I try to see the spot and fix it when possible as opposed to accepting it as being correct) since in those errors souls maybe lost. So I'd say it's more the entire range of sins. However, I do hold in my heart church-related errors and sins and the likes, because I believe that the Church is the embodiement of Christ's mission on Earth and anything that seeks to destort or disfigure the very mission is the most hazerdous. So, all errors and the likes play a sour note, but the Church related ones are the worst to me.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think your reactions or responses seem inappropriate. Sure, there's an issue of tact (along with making sure you are, in fact, correct!) but those both come with study and practice.

Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, but Pharisees got [i]very[/i] blunt talkings to, and he kicked out the guys who were selling stuff in the temple.

Sounds like He was kind to weak people who were trying to reform, but stern when the proper worship of God was at stake.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 7 2005, 11:40 PM']Socrates, this thread isn't about me, it's about zeal and toleration. However, if you feel the need to discuss where I stand before the public, then I'm not one to restrain any attempt to put things in the light for all to see. I should note that you are right, I will always feel compelled to obey the Church and to carry out Her mission because my view of Her is and shall remain idealistic, because I learned of Her from my readings, not from any actual experience (and thank God for that twice over). Up until recently, I did not actually have to see the array of problems plaguing the Church firsthand (I saw a few mind you) and had the comfort of pointing them out online with everyone else on Phatmass without actually ever having to witness them. It wasn't until I got to see the damned reality of the situation that I began to realize my "trad" views of the Church and even the more conservative views on this site about the Church were actually a very poor reflection of the current "spirit" of the Church and it's members. But I won't rant, I'll just answer your questions as they came.

What are the ranks of neo-conservatism? Well, I'd hardly call my original position on the Church anti-pope or schismatic (although, I did fall into that silly little trap for a while). If the term neo-conservative refers to someone who is not a schismatic or a heretic then no, I do not loath joining a position I whole-heartedly agree with. However, I'd have to lie to myself to believe that the Church isn't changing before my eyes and that there are a few different views of the Church. The "trad" view which hopes to return the Church to it's beautiful place on top of a hill and make it very seperate from the world which is now seeks to catch up with. The "neo-conservative" who seeks only to defend the bare essentials of the faith and the morality of the Church. And then the "progressive" who seeks to change even that (albiet, never being successful, for it cannot be done). I never wanted to defend the essentials, I see the Church as much more than a compliation of 2000 years of Faith and morals, I instead see it as 2000 years of tradition, of Christs body in action, etc. I never wanted to be someone who turned his back on the ancient and beautiful aspects of the Church. And do I consider the current pope a neo-conservative? Why, yes. Can I blame him? No, he's got his hands full trying to get bishops to obey and orthodoxy to be the norm again among the people.

Yes I believe the Church is the same Church founded by Christ; indeed, thats the only reason I stick on, cause It seems some Anglicans are more alluring in the practices. Do I think the teachings changed? No, consistency is key here because it is the only arguement I have to put forth when Satan trys to show me that the Church is changing in many ways.

Do I want Catholics to smash the protestant houses of heresy? It's all too late; 400 years ago, it was plausible, but not anymore. Now, they are too entrenched and number far too many. And they now have gained a powerful ally, Lucifer, in their struggle to take a grasp in this world. The liberals can run over protestantism and push for whatever they want and get it in time (contraception for example) and any attempt by Catholics now to stop the Protestant whore from claiming more innocent souls would immediatly trigger that athiestic humanism that would immediatly question the Catholic Church's actions and immediatly put the desire of any Catholic to carry out the mission since most Catholics simply limp with a retarded leg when it comes to carrying out things in a manner of zeal since we are so busy in partaking in that humanism. Too many Catholics don't see the well-being of the soul to be more important than that of the body (not to be seperated in a dualistic sense, but we dont' get judged by the condition of our body when we die). So, it would be a grand failure for Catholicism to go out and try to stop Protestanism by force at this point, and that simply would just worsen things. So, long story short, no I don't desire Catholics to go take out the Protestant houses of worship, we missed our chance. It's too late to be effective to bring back those souls lost to Protestanism back into the Fold of the Good Shepard (which is distanct, because it is cared for by Peter and his line, the popes as Jesus commanded Peter to do thrice).

If you still see a flaw in what I said, point it out. If you don't, even better.

PS: I might of said heretic one too many times for the likings of the PM community, so if anyone would like me to stop, just go ahead and tell me and give me something else to call our seperated brethren, that would be great. I've come to realize some people get offended quite easily on PM when I use the tradionally correct term for this situation.

PPS: How did you fall out of favor with the powers that be on PM? Isee you are fishy.
God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]715114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Micheal,

Sorry, I somehow missed this reply when it was posted.

Keep up the good fight, however don't get too discouraged about the Church. Yes, there are serious problems, but I still think you're confusing the actions of some bad or "liberal" Catholics with the Church itself. I suggest you actually study the writings and thought of the current Pope, before you judge him as one only concerned with defending the "bare essentials of the faith."

And rest assured, the attitudes and ideas of those liberal Catholics you've dealt with, most definitely NOT refelct the "spirit" of the "current" Church and the Holy Father!

Much damage has been done from the rebellion of many Catholics in the sixties, and we are still reaping these bad fruits, but there is also a lot of good going on in the Church, a genuine orthodox renewal, and fervent converts are being added to the Church. I think things are turning around, slowly but surely. I've seen it first hand.

PS - I wasn't aware I was ever "Phishy"! Am I still phishy?

Edited September 12, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

Bump for Mikey . . .

[journeyman]

This seemed like a relatively current thread in which liturgy and culture collided. Not being as widely read as the regulars on the debate table, I appreciated the effort of the author to define terms. Feel free to discuss?

Liturgy and Culture: Four Paradigms

Modern discussions about the cultural adaptation of the liturgy are related to fundamental theological convictions about the relationship between the Christian tradition and human culture. In general, four paradigms to the faith/culture relationship appear to be operative in modern American Catholicism. These are the conservative, liberal, radical and neo-conservative.

The conservative paradigm maintains an absolute commitment to the inherited shape of Catholicism and has very little openness to modern culture. While conservatism often manifests strong commitment to traditional cultures in which religion and social life were integrated, it generally regards modern culture as inimical to authentic religious life and practice. Among the more notable examples of the conservative paradigm is the integralist movement in French Catholicism in the earlier part of this century. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, remains the most notable representative of the conservative position today.

The conservative paradigm places strong emphasis on the cultural integrity and autonomy of Catholicism. The church, accordingly, is viewed as a perfect society and conceptions of doctrine and ecclesiastical practice generally have a classicist character which fails to account for change and development within the tradition.

In liturgical matters, this paradigm generates strong opposition to liturgical change or adaptation. It precludes the possibility of significant use of non-Christian ritual elements and symbols in the liturgy. Indeed, it takes a generally hostile attitude towards non-Christian religions, regarding them as defective vehicles for the gospel.

The conservative position is represented by those who reject or merely tolerate the liturgical revisions initiated by the Second Vatican Council. Adherents of this view generally opt for the normative character of the so-called Tridentine Mass and deny that the liturgy should be adapted or changed for cultural or pastoral reasons.

Cultural adaptation of the liturgy in this mode tends to be superficial and incidental. The project here is appropriately characterized as accommodation, whereby some local or native artistic elements or customs are allowed a minor role in liturgical celebrations. The principal concern, however, remains the integrity of the Latin rite in all its elements and expressions.

The liberal paradigm in modern Roman Catholicism is characterized by a commitment to intensive dialogue between the gospel and human culture. It has a strong openness to the religious significance of modern culture and the revelatory character of ongoing human experience. It seeks to overcome the rupture between Christian tradition and the modern world and tends to be optimistic about the congruence between the gospel and culture. It is enthusiastic about cultural pluralism, interreligious dialogue and the emergence of a world church incarnated in diverse cultures.

In liturgical matters, the liberal attitude is strongly committed to cultural adaptation. It is confident that Catholic liturgy can be extricated from its Roman and European forms and expressions. The project here is appropriately described as inculturation, whereby local ritual and symbolic forms are invested with Christian meaning. The goal is to create styles of worship that are authentically Christian, yet structured around the ritual and symbol systems of the particular culture. The project typically involves attempts to "baptize" some non-Christian rites, particularly those associated with passage and transition.

Liturgical inculturation is not, however, free from considerable ambiguity. The attempts to identify and adapt non-Christian ritual and symbolic forms as vehicles for Christian expression can easily be compromised by the internal dynamics and semantic tenaciousness of the forms themselves. Accordingly, the liberal project to wed Christian meanings and cultural forms has a tendency to underestimate the complexity of the project involved.

The radical paradigm is distinguished from the liberal by its commitment to a substantial reformulation of Christian faith. In general, radicalism has a limited and selective commitment to the inherited tradition and generally allows a hermeneutic of suspicion a central role in the appropriation of that tradition. The interest is not so much in opening the gospel or the Christian tradition to cultures as it is in generating a critique of both the gospel and human culture and establishing a new religious/cultural order. Accordingly, the radical project is often apocalyptic and millenarian. Radicalism favors a pluralistic view of religion, allowing other religions equal or similar status to Christianity and asserting the possibility of a number of Christ-figures or saviors. For these reasons, it is not committed to upholding the uniqueness of Christ or of Christian faith.

The radical dialogue between Christianity and other religions is appropriately described as inreligionisation, whereby Christianity undertakes a self-emptying into non-Christian religion so that a new religious order will emerge. What Christianity has to offer other religions in this paradigm is not particular forms or doctrines or an institutional order but a liberating dynamic for self-expression and freedom.

The radical approach is operative in some strands of Christian feminist thought and practice which seek a reconstruction of Christian tradition in order to overcome perceived structures of patriarchy, sexism and oppression. Some feminists, critical of both Christian tradition and patriarchical culture, promote a process similar to inreligionisation whereby Christianity enters into dialogue with non-Christian feminist and utopian traditions and generates new ritual and symbolic expressions.

In the radical paradigm, adaptation brings about a profound reconfiguration of inherited liturgical forms. It favors local religious elements and symbols and rejects those imported from other cultures. It accords scriptural status to non-biblical readings and gives narrative and mythic expression to minority or "suppressed" voices.

The neo-conservative paradigm shares with the conservative an absolute commitment to the priority of the Christian tradition, but is distinguished from it by a more sophisticated appreciation of change and development within the tradition. This paradigm shares with the liberal an appropriation of the positive values of human culture and the need for the church to have a credible presence in diverse cultural environments. However, it incorporates a fundamentally critical and cautious attitude toward modern liberal culture and is aware of the danger to Christian faith in a wholesale embrace of liberal values and philosophical schemes. Accordingly, neo-conservative scholarship is acutely attentive to social-scientific analysis of the anti-institutional, atomistic and individualistic character of modern culture.

Neo-conservatism allows that the church can accept from cultural encounter those elements that will enrich, but not compromise, the ritual and doctrinal integrity of the historic tradition. The point of synthesis is located within the church’s historical tradition in such a way that cultural elements may be incorporated into the Church's life when that is deemed fitting, but not allowed to act as significant modifiers of the tradition. The neo-conservative paradigm generates a strong conviction of the creative power of Christian institutions and is skeptical about any project that allows American cultural experience a determinative role in modern Catholic renewal.

The neo-conservative paradigm also generates skepticism about the project to create a liturgical order adapted to modern secular culture. In the advancement of Catholic life in non-Western cultural environments, it promotes a process of acculturation rather than inculturation. By this is meant a process by which ritual and symbolic elements compatible with the Roman liturgical tradition are incorporated in a significant way. The process is one of purification and reorientation of cultural elements, of careful and critical assimilation of cultural forms to the Christian tradition. The neo-conservative approach rejects any discontinuity with the past and is opposed to substantial modifications of the given liturgical tradition. In the incorporation of new cultural elements, it is careful to ensure that developments in the church's liturgy are in continuity with the preexisting tradition. It has, on the one hand, a strong conviction about the ability of the inherited forms of Catholic life to speak across cultures and, on the other, an appreciation of the inevitable distance that must mark the relationship of the gospel to all cultures.

These four paradigms of the faith/culture relationship are not, of course, rigidly self-contained or mutually exclusive. Considerable overlap is evident in theory and practice and, depending on the issue, there is considerable movement back and forth.

From:
Msgr. M. Francis Mannion. "Liturgy and Culture," In The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Peter E. Fink, S.J., editor. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press - A Michael Glazier Book, 1990, pp. 307-313.