http://ncronline.org/news/global/austrian-parish-listens-priest-none-receive-host
This is really a follow-up to the situation in Austria to this blog post. But what's funny is that the unity was a unity of "disobedience", so to speak. Here's the scene:
The parish church of Amras, Austria, near Innsbruck in Tyrol, was chock-a-block full for the first-Communion Mass on April 22. Shortly before Communion, the parish priest, Norbertine Fr. Patrick Busskamp, announced that only Catholics who were in a state of grace should come forward to Communion. Catholics who are divorced and remarried and Catholics who do not attend Mass every week were not worthy to receive the Eucharist, he said.I don't know how long this will continue in Austria, but it illustrates, again as I mentioned here, “the splendor of unity” that Vatican II put into place when they thought they were being clever by being “so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”, the Liberals and the Conservatives, with the same equivocal statements.
When Communion time came, not a single adult came forward. The entire congregation demonstratively remained seated. Only the children received Communion.
This says vastly more about people than it does about Vatican II, or the Catholic Church - except insofar as it can talk about all churches.
ReplyDeleteI see the Methodists have a vote coming up soon. Memory fails me - what's the vote over?
On the scene here, I can tell you that Austrians are leaving the Church in droves.
ReplyDeleteAnd they're not becoming Protestants.
Traditionalist-RC source presents evidence of the decrepit state of Romanism in Austria:
ReplyDeleteDervishes perform in the Votive Church, Vienna
Tradcats are also afraid of the possibility that decadently liberal Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna could become the next pope:
SCHONBORN’S “PROPHECIES”
I think your critique here of a lack of unity is unfair John. True enough there are not united in practice or even belief. But as far as i know the Vatican treats "unity" as meaning that their doctrine stays the same .. Now i know that you on tribalogue (and me) would disagree that that is so but i think we should argue against them using their own definitions . Also the following canons allow for some dissent..
ReplyDeleteCanon 218. Those who are engaged in the sacred disciplines enjoy a lawful freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing a due respect for the magisterium of the Church.
Canon 212, § 1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.
Canon 212, § 2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.
Canon 212, § 3 . In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, the Christian faithful have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence towards their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.
Space Bishop:
ReplyDeleteas far as i know the Vatican treats "unity" as meaning that their doctrine stays the same .. Now i know that you on tribalogue (and me) would disagree that that is so but i think we should argue against them using their own definitions
I agree we should argue against them using their own definitions, but we need to critique those definitions as well, using external criteria.
And it's true that they do permit some dissent, but what I'm illustrating here is part of a much larger problem that speaks to the very heart of their definition of unity.
Their definition of "unity" was preserved at Vatican II precisely by creating definitions that gave these dissidents the opportunity to come away with the understanding that they, too, were going to be loyal subjects of the Vatican. Now the Vatican is re-thinking that definition, and it's not just little cracks and fissures that are opening up, but something much larger than that, I think.
In short, what I think we'll see coming up is a split within Roman Catholicism that will make Machen's departure from the liberal mainline Presbyterian church look small by comparison.
Hi Viisaus, thanks for these links.
ReplyDeleteHave you been following the recent negotiations between the Vatican and the SSPX?
Viisaus- Kardinal Schönborn might be "decadently liberal" in some ways- for instance, he seems like a nice guy, and I actually agree with a lot of what he says in his weekly column in the Kronen Zeitung- but unlike the current Pope, he doesn't believe in evolution, so that puts a bit of a tarnish on his decadence.
ReplyDeleteSchönborn seems to be a self-described conservative:
ReplyDeleteAnd although he makes no secret of the fact that he is a conservative at heart and an adamant advocate of both mandatory priestly celibacy and of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae,
I have seen his name a lot, and a few articles he's written, but I'm not all that familiar with him.
He's an older guy, white hair. Wears a funny hat.
ReplyDeleteThat Schönborn could be seen as "conservative" by mainstream, non-traditionalist RCs only shows how deeply into the morass of liberalism the RCC has now gotten.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/144bev04_16_2012.htm
"This is the most radical initiative I have seen since the “iconoclast phase” of Paul VI’s pontificate ended. In those years that immediately followed the Council - from 1965 to 1975 - Catholics witnessed the drastic destruction of their churches’ interiors, which were stripped of altars, Communion rails, pulpits, confessional, statues, bells, etc.
Now, the destruction is aimed no longer at the interiors, but at the churches themselves. This German initiative seems to be a trial balloon. If people accept it, it will set the parameters for a mammoth increase in the process of church closures.
So far, this practice of closing/selling churches has been executed by invoking a variety of non-convincing reasons – not enough money to pay for the pedophilia crisis of the clergy, not enough priests to say Mass, not enough people going to Mass (check here, here and here). If the Augsburg experiment works out, the “prophecies” made by Cardinals Schönborn and Ratzinger predicting a complete change in the face of the Catholic Church will come to pass."
Well, Viisaus, it's change or perish. Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole, just don't sell anymore in Europe. WWJD?
ReplyDeletezilch said:
ReplyDelete"Well, Viisaus, it's change or perish. Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole, just don't sell anymore in Europe. WWJD?"
1. Sounds awfully similar to what John Shelby Spong once said.
Of course, many others have said the same or similar. For example, William Hamilton, Paul Van Buren, Thomas J. J. Altizer.
Their ideas were in turn partially rooted in Nietzsche.
Voltaire and many of his generation thought Christianity would be dead and buried in enough time as well.
In fact, we could look as far back as antiquity to see how many have prognosticators have claimed a poor fate for Christianity.
Yet Biblical Christianity is still here.
2. Christianity might be in decline in Europe as a whole. But that's not the case in other parts of the world such as Africa and Asia.
Or Christianity might be in decline among majority groups in Europe, but not necessarily among minority groups.
3. I wouldn't shed too many tears if liberal Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the like were relegated a place among the tombs.
4. Quantity isn't quality. Numbers aren't everything. Better to have a faithful few than numerous nominals, for example.
By the way, perhaps an unspoken implication behind the decline of Christianity in Europe statement is that an increasing number of people don't believe Christianity is true. That may or may not be the case for many or most Europeans.
ReplyDeleteHowever, let's not forget Christianity might also be in decline in Europe because secularists (among others) are actively opposing Christianity. For example, there are laws or policies which are prejudiced against Christians. Those in power remove Christians from public roles when Christians speak out against certain types of ethical behavior (e.g. homosexual marriage). People like Richard Dawkins sometimes seek to block Christian appointments at their universities. Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have advocated setting up atheist schools. And so on and so forth.
Well, don't forget that, in the original article, the church was "was chock-a-block full".
ReplyDeleteIn case I wasn't clear enough in my last comment, what I meant to imply was it's not necessarily the case people don't believe Christianity is true. It could also arguably be the case that there's active suppression of the truth by certain groups including some secularists such that many people don't get a chance to hear the truth (assuming Christianity is true).
ReplyDeleteHi Rocking, I was sort of actually addressing Zilch, who was saying that Christianity wasn't "selling well" in Europe. There's more to it than just a sales process.
ReplyDeleteRocking, you say:
ReplyDeleteHowever, let's not forget Christianity might also be in decline in Europe because secularists (among others) are actively opposing Christianity. For example, there are laws or policies which are prejudiced against Christians. Those in power remove Christians from public roles when Christians speak out against certain types of ethical behavior (e.g. homosexual marriage).
Certainly there are secularists here in Europe who speak their mind, but I'm unaware of any laws or policies which are "prejudiced against Christians", unless you count teaching evolution as "prejudice". Likewise, I don't know of any cases of "people in power" removing Christians from public roles. Could you give me some examples?
And sure, it might well be that Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole, are not (yet) in a terminal decline here. But my guess is that Christianity will never again be as powerful a force in Europe as it once was. I've been wrong before, though.
John- yes, of course there's more to religion than a "sales process". I was just employing somewhat flippant shorthand. No offense intended.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
zilch said:
ReplyDelete"Certainly there are secularists here in Europe who speak their mind, but I'm unaware of any laws or policies which are 'prejudiced against Christians', unless you count teaching evolution as 'prejudice'. Likewise, I don't know of any cases of 'people in power' removing Christians from public roles. Could you give me some examples?"
Sure thing, zilch. Here are a few examples from the U.K.: one; two; three; four; five; six; seven; eight; nine; ten; eleven; twelve; thirteen; fourteen; fifteen; sixteen; seventeen; eighteen; nineteen; and twenty (on a related note, here is some info about their secular college).
"And sure, it might well be that Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole, are not (yet) in a terminal decline here. But my guess is that Christianity will never again be as powerful a force in Europe as it once was. I've been wrong before, though."
Well, I'm not saying "Christianity" isn't in decline in Europe. It could be. But it depends on a number of factors like what we mean by Christianity, which parts of Europe we're talking about, etc.
Anyway, I don't think I have much more to say than what I've already said above.
Thanks for the links, rocking. While I must admit that some of them seem like bona fide discrimination against Christians, others are against Scientologists (since when are Scientologists Christians?), and others are responses to discrimination on the part of Christians against homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to untangle these claims of who is discriminating against whom. But I'm willing to concede that Christians are sometimes discriminated against for their belief, at least in England. Don't know of any cases here in Austria, though.
In any case, I doubt that such discrimination is instrumental in bringing about the decline of Christianity in Europe. The main reasons for the decline are the shenanigans of the Catholic Church, and the growth of evidence that the Bible cannot be literally true. But that's just my humble opinion.
zilch said:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the links, rocking. While I must admit that some of them seem like bona fide discrimination against Christians"
Even if you disagree with the other articles, I would think these bona fide articles would be enough to justify what I said above.
"others are against Scientologists (since when are Scientologists Christians?)"
The Scientologist article wasn't saying Scientologists were Christians. It was simply that a teenager had called Scientology a "cult" which led to legal action against him. For some reason I had thought the teenager was a Christian. But the article doesn't specify. So my apologies for this one.
"and others are responses to discrimination on the part of Christians against homosexuals."
Take the street preacher who said homosexuality is a sin. This led to him being arrested, jailed, and charged with causing "harassment, alarm or distress." Why do you think this was a case of "discrimination on the part of Christians against homosexuals"?
"It's hard to untangle these claims of who is discriminating against whom. But I'm willing to concede that Christians are sometimes discriminated against for their belief, at least in England. Don't know of any cases here in Austria, though."
Okay, cool.
By the way, I picked the U.K. mainly because I follow what happens in the U.K. due to our common language more often than I follow news in other parts of Europe which don't officially speak English like Austria.
"In any case, I doubt that such discrimination is instrumental in bringing about the decline of Christianity in Europe."
I've had my say above. Not much else to add, I don't think.
"The main reasons for the decline are the shenanigans of the Catholic Church, and the growth of evidence that the Bible cannot be literally true. But that's just my humble opinion."
Obviously "the shenanigans of the Catholic Church" isn't specific. But I won't argue with the point since I'm not Catholic and don't have any interest in defending Catholicism, per se.
I'm sure you've already sparred here and there and elsewhere with other Christians about your latter point though.
Of course, if you have a specific objection, then perhaps someone can try to respond.
I can't vouch for the reliability of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe. That's for others to judge. But if even a fraction of the information they provide is accurate, then it's a bit disconcerting. Here is their "Report 2011" (pdf). By the way, they're apparently an Austrian registered NGO and their report includes info on discrimination against Christians in Austria. Again, I don't know how accurate or reliable it is. But obviously people can read it for themselves and make up their own minds.
ReplyDelete