Jonathon and I were discussing this morning in our Exodus group chat some of the themes of mission. I made the point that our era is different than the Apostolic Era, so even championing that era can be, so to speak, falling into perhaps antiquarianism a longing for some sort of previous golden age.
The early Christians had an advantage that we do not in our own period. Christianity, in some sense, was an upstart--it was new and exciting that differed from both paganism and Judaism. One of the major issues today is that, especially in the West, is that Christianity is viewed as old and familiar regardless if people actually are familiar with it.
Our time is different and unique in Christian history, and God has willed us to be here in this moment.
Thanks. I guess we can develop further what we mean by Apostolic. Like you suggest, we cannot muddle it with a specific historical “structure.” But perhaps elements are relevant. I’m particularly thinking of that genuine out-going type of evangelization.
Certainly. I’ve been reading on and off Cardinal Mueller and Gustavo Gutierrez’s book “On the Side of the Poor.” Many folks take issue with Liberation Theology, but I can’t help think that one aspect that is part of its principles is to go out and meet people where they are in life. Some take it too far with merely material oppressions, I get it, but I think the idea is present in Augustine’s restless heart.
People are looking for peace. How can we go out and communicate that Christ’s yoke is sweet and will give them peace. New wine for new wine skins. This has been on my mind as of late.
One of the fallacies of Modernism is that the "royal me" has power and authority--this is my understanding of the heresy of Americanism. We have this belief that if we speak loud enough, fight hard enough, we can change things. One of the things "Christendom" requires that any kingdom requires is humility on the part of the subjects. Christendom is not a democracy, I owe a duty of obedience to the Church.
Fulton Sheen also said that the Church dies and is resurrected every 500 years or so. I make no comment on if this is part of that 500 year cycle but I do recognize that hope in the resurrection includes hope in the resurrection and revitalization of the Church.
Some in the "rad trad" scene have a "rigidity" that seems to me to be pharisaical, and in some senses disobedient to the Church. Even if some people don't like the Novus Ordo liturgy (the opinion is allowed), it is still a valid Mass, which is the more important quality. Humility means we don't get to decide what is the best way of doing things--we just have to live our lives as good Catholics and avoid being so entrenched in our position that it seems schismatical.
Models of the Church by Avery Cardinal Dulles has had a profound impact on me thinking about these matters. There is the model of the institution, but it does have authority that flows from Christ as written about by Kelly today, but many of its constructs are accidental to the Roman and Middle Ages. It begs the question Is the Church’s quiddity specifically attached to these historical accidents?
I think humility is the key in thinking about the Church and how to proclaim the Gospel in our time. There is a need for the tradition of the Catholic Church to provide clarity and sound teaching.
It’s the opposite of humility for some to simply throw out the traditions and call it rigid. The opposite extreme of rigid is instability. Nonetheless, the Church cannot remain stagnant in time, there must be a humility of understanding that people who are shaped by our times receive the unchanging truth in different ways than our ancestors. Our contexts and biases are what cause this need for pastoral concern.
I don’t have my finger on any clear answer, but the way forward has something to do with the unity of believers to which Christ spoke in His high priestly prayer. JN 17.
You made a good point, Phillip, about how the Church cannot remain stagnant; she must always grow and develop organically.
I would add that there is something to be said for the universality and stability of tradition (lowercase t -- I am not referring to Sacred Tradition here). If Christendom were truly dead, as Pope Francis and Fr. Pietraszko argue, then it would mean that the Apostolic tradition carried through two millennia has failed. This seems to undermine the great importance of these traditions. I do not think that we should completely bury Christendom and work on rebuilding; to do so is to bury two millennia of organically developed tradition and stability. It is true that the Church must always find new and improved ways of meeting the challenges that arise in the modern world, but to completely bury precedent in doing so seems too radical -- and, I would argue, dangerously close to modernism itself. There should be a good balance between maintaining this tradition and developing organically in the modern world.
As you beautifully worded it in an article here on Missio Dei back in February, Phillip, whatever leads souls to God is the best way. The various rites and forms of the Church help the many members of the faithful find God in their own unique lives; one should not be completely dismissed as too old or rigid.
You write, “If Christendom were truly dead, as Pope Francis and Fr. Pietraszko argue, then it would mean that the Apostolic tradition carried through two millennia has failed.”
I don’t believe that necessarily follows, so perhaps I’d ask what do you mean by Christendom? I’d apply it to the medieval governance of the Church and its authority/influence on the greater culture. For example, I’d argue that Christendom didn’t exist really until Charlemagne. I think it to be clear that the Church does not influence Western culture politically in the way it once did, however, it can still be a moral beacon for it.
Either way it’s never my intention to argue against tradition or advocate for its abrogation. I personally differ on the idea of Christendom and the Church as the institute. I don’t view them to be the same. I hope my comments have been clear this far.
I will say that I definitely agree with your sentiment of many different expressions. I think there is definitely a need for tradition as a grounding foundation of the faith.
Phillip, I think your response is very much my own here. And perhaps it was my failure to define clearly what the language around Christendom is.
Chantal, I'm not in any way suggesting that the death of Christendom is a good thing. Nor am I relegating all the disciplines of the past to a type of outdated dismissal.
Right now in the Church there is no doubt a latent type of hatred for tradition, as well as a rigid traditionalism. Within my area, many have fled to the SSPX as a result of this disparity. I tend to try to accompany such individuals, as I understand why its taking place.
When I speak about holding on to revive Christendom what I am speaking about is not the good things that still ought to exist in the Church today. What I'm speaking to are some of the accidental dimensions that are structural that are held unto. Some of them also include expectations.
For instance, within a Catholic culture, it would be obvious not to bring coffee to mass. So if someone where to bring in their coffee cup, one would begin by reacting in such a way that says, "You should know better." However, within the Church today, there is an overall ignorance with regard to reverence, the liturgy, right worship. So how we approach this person no longer has a note of "You should know better" but rather, "I need to explain lovingly and in a beautiful way why that is inappropriate."
If we end up resenting that people are ignorant of the Church's teaching, we are still operating within a type of structural mode where the expectation is such that the faith and moral fabric of the Church is to be passed on by osmosis. Shifting gears to see that many have been poorly catechized, as well as are victims of twisted catechesis, and many haven't encountered the Lord, all recognizes the very real circumstances the Church finds herself in.
But if we operate within the modality of Christendom, there is an expectation placed upon the people that doesn't match up with the reality. I cannot tell you how much venom guests receive when they arrive at a Church today. In my own life, I've been guilty of this, having grown up in a good Catholic family, lacking an appreciation for what others have missed.
If I am to think about the Church and world today, it reminds me somewhat of Plato's cave. I have to enter that cave without becoming a part of it. I believe what I am saying is that by the death of Christendom which Sheen reports, we are simply saying that we've gone back into the cave. And by burying it, we are simply acknowledging its death.
The second shift in our mentality is the importance of "Intentional Discipleship." While I believe this is always relevant, it becomes more emphasized when we cannot rely upon the culture to reinforce the Gospel's proclamation. This means that evangelization needs to take on an approach that is something we intend to do - with people who might say, "Why is that man stapled to the plus sign." That is actually something I've heard and it was stated genuinely.
My intention in this post was not to bring forward division amongst the authors of this community. Nor was it to endorse a type of persecution toward traditional Catholics. These are things I generally try to avoid. My hope was to present a discernment of our current circumstances, and not operating out of what we wish our circumstances were.
Phillip, I found a quote by Joseph Pierce that states my general idea of Christendom:
"Christendom is best and most succinctly defined in traditional ecclesiological terms as the Church Militant. Whereas the Church in eternity is the Church Suffering (purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (heaven), the Church in time is always the Church Militant, which is to say that she is the Church at War. Her war is with the world and its worldliness. Her war is not fought with soldiers but with saints and also with those sinners who are trying to become saints. Her weapons are not those that bring death but those which give life. The culture of life that she brings with her is animated by the goodness of virtue, the truth of reason, and the beauty of God’s image in his creatures. She is the wellspring of civilization" (Joseph Pierce, "What Is Christendom?" National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/what-is-christendom).
This topic is definitely something I want to explore more through further research and reflection.
Fr. Pietraszko, my apologies, I didn't mean to be causing any division with my reply, nor did I mean any disrespect toward what you had written, so I apologize if I came across that way. Your article was very well-written and extremely thought-provoking, so thank you for that! Evangelization is definitely needed in our society -- both in far-off lands as missionaries as well as more immediately in our own society. I'm reminded of the sign Holy Apostles has facing the cars as they exit the campus: "Entering mission territory." It's easy for us cradle Catholics to take our Faith for granted, so it's always good to remember that many sadly do not even know the Gospel; we must not judge others, but instead lovingly instruct those who do not know.
Again, I apologize for how my reply may have been interpreted last evening. Your article has led me to think much more deeply about Christendom, Father, for which I am very grateful. May God bless you in all that you do for the Church and for Missio Dei!
I am getting some insight from your notion of Christendom. I definitely think we are operating from two different definitions, so I think that a helpful fruit of this discussion. I definitely wouldn't want to remove "Church Militant" from the nature of the Church. We are at war with the enemy, the flesh, sin and death - that's just a fact of Scripture. :)
This definitely succinctly points out the dilemma. I believe, when in doubt, we should rely on tradition rather than inventing something new. Yet at the same time we ought to practice our tradition with patience and charity, especially insofar as our worship is visible to those in need of correction or those outside the Church.
Honestly, I think a lot of the problems one sees in the Church today are fixed if 9 out of 10 Catholics in the world think "the Church says it therefore it must be true", and if 9 out of 10 representatives of the Church hierarchy take their responsibility with grave seriousness. I present this as if it is a casual solution--"*just* do this and the problem is solved"--but it takes discrete and intentional catechesis, which can be the work of a lifetime.
That's why I think the largest and most important mission territory in Christendom (such as it is today) is current Catholics. If we want to revitalize the Church we must begin by convincing people that it is worth revitalizing. We can accomplish this by lowering the bar or raising it, and I think the world could afford to be called to a higher standard.
Jonathon and I were discussing this morning in our Exodus group chat some of the themes of mission. I made the point that our era is different than the Apostolic Era, so even championing that era can be, so to speak, falling into perhaps antiquarianism a longing for some sort of previous golden age.
The early Christians had an advantage that we do not in our own period. Christianity, in some sense, was an upstart--it was new and exciting that differed from both paganism and Judaism. One of the major issues today is that, especially in the West, is that Christianity is viewed as old and familiar regardless if people actually are familiar with it.
Our time is different and unique in Christian history, and God has willed us to be here in this moment.
Thanks. I guess we can develop further what we mean by Apostolic. Like you suggest, we cannot muddle it with a specific historical “structure.” But perhaps elements are relevant. I’m particularly thinking of that genuine out-going type of evangelization.
Certainly. I’ve been reading on and off Cardinal Mueller and Gustavo Gutierrez’s book “On the Side of the Poor.” Many folks take issue with Liberation Theology, but I can’t help think that one aspect that is part of its principles is to go out and meet people where they are in life. Some take it too far with merely material oppressions, I get it, but I think the idea is present in Augustine’s restless heart.
People are looking for peace. How can we go out and communicate that Christ’s yoke is sweet and will give them peace. New wine for new wine skins. This has been on my mind as of late.
One of the fallacies of Modernism is that the "royal me" has power and authority--this is my understanding of the heresy of Americanism. We have this belief that if we speak loud enough, fight hard enough, we can change things. One of the things "Christendom" requires that any kingdom requires is humility on the part of the subjects. Christendom is not a democracy, I owe a duty of obedience to the Church.
Fulton Sheen also said that the Church dies and is resurrected every 500 years or so. I make no comment on if this is part of that 500 year cycle but I do recognize that hope in the resurrection includes hope in the resurrection and revitalization of the Church.
Some in the "rad trad" scene have a "rigidity" that seems to me to be pharisaical, and in some senses disobedient to the Church. Even if some people don't like the Novus Ordo liturgy (the opinion is allowed), it is still a valid Mass, which is the more important quality. Humility means we don't get to decide what is the best way of doing things--we just have to live our lives as good Catholics and avoid being so entrenched in our position that it seems schismatical.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay, God bless!
Models of the Church by Avery Cardinal Dulles has had a profound impact on me thinking about these matters. There is the model of the institution, but it does have authority that flows from Christ as written about by Kelly today, but many of its constructs are accidental to the Roman and Middle Ages. It begs the question Is the Church’s quiddity specifically attached to these historical accidents?
I think humility is the key in thinking about the Church and how to proclaim the Gospel in our time. There is a need for the tradition of the Catholic Church to provide clarity and sound teaching.
It’s the opposite of humility for some to simply throw out the traditions and call it rigid. The opposite extreme of rigid is instability. Nonetheless, the Church cannot remain stagnant in time, there must be a humility of understanding that people who are shaped by our times receive the unchanging truth in different ways than our ancestors. Our contexts and biases are what cause this need for pastoral concern.
I don’t have my finger on any clear answer, but the way forward has something to do with the unity of believers to which Christ spoke in His high priestly prayer. JN 17.
You made a good point, Phillip, about how the Church cannot remain stagnant; she must always grow and develop organically.
I would add that there is something to be said for the universality and stability of tradition (lowercase t -- I am not referring to Sacred Tradition here). If Christendom were truly dead, as Pope Francis and Fr. Pietraszko argue, then it would mean that the Apostolic tradition carried through two millennia has failed. This seems to undermine the great importance of these traditions. I do not think that we should completely bury Christendom and work on rebuilding; to do so is to bury two millennia of organically developed tradition and stability. It is true that the Church must always find new and improved ways of meeting the challenges that arise in the modern world, but to completely bury precedent in doing so seems too radical -- and, I would argue, dangerously close to modernism itself. There should be a good balance between maintaining this tradition and developing organically in the modern world.
As you beautifully worded it in an article here on Missio Dei back in February, Phillip, whatever leads souls to God is the best way. The various rites and forms of the Church help the many members of the faithful find God in their own unique lives; one should not be completely dismissed as too old or rigid.
You write, “If Christendom were truly dead, as Pope Francis and Fr. Pietraszko argue, then it would mean that the Apostolic tradition carried through two millennia has failed.”
I don’t believe that necessarily follows, so perhaps I’d ask what do you mean by Christendom? I’d apply it to the medieval governance of the Church and its authority/influence on the greater culture. For example, I’d argue that Christendom didn’t exist really until Charlemagne. I think it to be clear that the Church does not influence Western culture politically in the way it once did, however, it can still be a moral beacon for it.
Either way it’s never my intention to argue against tradition or advocate for its abrogation. I personally differ on the idea of Christendom and the Church as the institute. I don’t view them to be the same. I hope my comments have been clear this far.
I will say that I definitely agree with your sentiment of many different expressions. I think there is definitely a need for tradition as a grounding foundation of the faith.
Phillip, I think your response is very much my own here. And perhaps it was my failure to define clearly what the language around Christendom is.
Chantal, I'm not in any way suggesting that the death of Christendom is a good thing. Nor am I relegating all the disciplines of the past to a type of outdated dismissal.
Right now in the Church there is no doubt a latent type of hatred for tradition, as well as a rigid traditionalism. Within my area, many have fled to the SSPX as a result of this disparity. I tend to try to accompany such individuals, as I understand why its taking place.
When I speak about holding on to revive Christendom what I am speaking about is not the good things that still ought to exist in the Church today. What I'm speaking to are some of the accidental dimensions that are structural that are held unto. Some of them also include expectations.
For instance, within a Catholic culture, it would be obvious not to bring coffee to mass. So if someone where to bring in their coffee cup, one would begin by reacting in such a way that says, "You should know better." However, within the Church today, there is an overall ignorance with regard to reverence, the liturgy, right worship. So how we approach this person no longer has a note of "You should know better" but rather, "I need to explain lovingly and in a beautiful way why that is inappropriate."
If we end up resenting that people are ignorant of the Church's teaching, we are still operating within a type of structural mode where the expectation is such that the faith and moral fabric of the Church is to be passed on by osmosis. Shifting gears to see that many have been poorly catechized, as well as are victims of twisted catechesis, and many haven't encountered the Lord, all recognizes the very real circumstances the Church finds herself in.
But if we operate within the modality of Christendom, there is an expectation placed upon the people that doesn't match up with the reality. I cannot tell you how much venom guests receive when they arrive at a Church today. In my own life, I've been guilty of this, having grown up in a good Catholic family, lacking an appreciation for what others have missed.
If I am to think about the Church and world today, it reminds me somewhat of Plato's cave. I have to enter that cave without becoming a part of it. I believe what I am saying is that by the death of Christendom which Sheen reports, we are simply saying that we've gone back into the cave. And by burying it, we are simply acknowledging its death.
The second shift in our mentality is the importance of "Intentional Discipleship." While I believe this is always relevant, it becomes more emphasized when we cannot rely upon the culture to reinforce the Gospel's proclamation. This means that evangelization needs to take on an approach that is something we intend to do - with people who might say, "Why is that man stapled to the plus sign." That is actually something I've heard and it was stated genuinely.
My intention in this post was not to bring forward division amongst the authors of this community. Nor was it to endorse a type of persecution toward traditional Catholics. These are things I generally try to avoid. My hope was to present a discernment of our current circumstances, and not operating out of what we wish our circumstances were.
Here is maybe a bit more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfBlijxCU4k
Phillip, I found a quote by Joseph Pierce that states my general idea of Christendom:
"Christendom is best and most succinctly defined in traditional ecclesiological terms as the Church Militant. Whereas the Church in eternity is the Church Suffering (purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (heaven), the Church in time is always the Church Militant, which is to say that she is the Church at War. Her war is with the world and its worldliness. Her war is not fought with soldiers but with saints and also with those sinners who are trying to become saints. Her weapons are not those that bring death but those which give life. The culture of life that she brings with her is animated by the goodness of virtue, the truth of reason, and the beauty of God’s image in his creatures. She is the wellspring of civilization" (Joseph Pierce, "What Is Christendom?" National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/what-is-christendom).
This topic is definitely something I want to explore more through further research and reflection.
Fr. Pietraszko, my apologies, I didn't mean to be causing any division with my reply, nor did I mean any disrespect toward what you had written, so I apologize if I came across that way. Your article was very well-written and extremely thought-provoking, so thank you for that! Evangelization is definitely needed in our society -- both in far-off lands as missionaries as well as more immediately in our own society. I'm reminded of the sign Holy Apostles has facing the cars as they exit the campus: "Entering mission territory." It's easy for us cradle Catholics to take our Faith for granted, so it's always good to remember that many sadly do not even know the Gospel; we must not judge others, but instead lovingly instruct those who do not know.
Again, I apologize for how my reply may have been interpreted last evening. Your article has led me to think much more deeply about Christendom, Father, for which I am very grateful. May God bless you in all that you do for the Church and for Missio Dei!
I am getting some insight from your notion of Christendom. I definitely think we are operating from two different definitions, so I think that a helpful fruit of this discussion. I definitely wouldn't want to remove "Church Militant" from the nature of the Church. We are at war with the enemy, the flesh, sin and death - that's just a fact of Scripture. :)
This definitely succinctly points out the dilemma. I believe, when in doubt, we should rely on tradition rather than inventing something new. Yet at the same time we ought to practice our tradition with patience and charity, especially insofar as our worship is visible to those in need of correction or those outside the Church.
Honestly, I think a lot of the problems one sees in the Church today are fixed if 9 out of 10 Catholics in the world think "the Church says it therefore it must be true", and if 9 out of 10 representatives of the Church hierarchy take their responsibility with grave seriousness. I present this as if it is a casual solution--"*just* do this and the problem is solved"--but it takes discrete and intentional catechesis, which can be the work of a lifetime.
That's why I think the largest and most important mission territory in Christendom (such as it is today) is current Catholics. If we want to revitalize the Church we must begin by convincing people that it is worth revitalizing. We can accomplish this by lowering the bar or raising it, and I think the world could afford to be called to a higher standard.
Fr Chris, Great article! You are spot on. Our archdiocese will be having a synod on Pentecost and I hope my husband brings your article to share.