Inclusivism of the Roman variety

I didn’t really know about this until I saw it in black and white the other day.

According to Vatican II, salvation is available for all, ‘not just to schismatics, heretics and Jews, but to non-Christians too and even to atheists if they are in good faith’ (Hans Küng, The Church [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Image Books, 1976], p.406). Of course the fullness of salvation is only found in the RC church.

Wow – that seems quite new to me. Though as Stamoolis points out, ‘nice’ though it may be, it still retains the smack of Western individualism so deplored by the Orthodox and their ecclesiology. I.e. it's still just about you and God in the final analysis, not about God and the church.

Interesting... I wonder what counts as an atheist in bad faith. (Isn't atheism the very definition of a 'bad faith'?!)

Syncretism and leadership

A passing reference to a famous debate by Patricia Buckley Ebrey [The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ch ina (Cambridge: CUP, 1996)] writing on the Qing attitude to Christians in the late 18^th century raises important questions. The Catholics were divided among themselves as to whether or not ancestral rites should be followed by Chin ese Christians. The Jesuits (inspired by Matteo Ricci) were OK with it, but other Catholic orders (including the papal legate, Maillard de Tournon) were not. This hardline approach led to the emperor (Kangxi, 1662-1722) expelling all missionaries who would not support his stance of making Christians perform the rites (he otherwise tolerated their faith).

Presumably the repercussions of the wrangle among the Catholic leaders were significant for Christians on the ground, some of whom were harrassed (or worse) and who found themselves in some cases, presumably, without leaders (though on the plus side if a 'lay' leadership could arise in the vacuum after foreign priests were expelled then that could stimulate a deeper discipleship among the laity).

All this made me ask, Who should be in charge of that decision? Who is competent to make the ruling? Anyone? Just the legate from the pope? Just the more experienced leader who has imbibed plenty from both cultures? No one? Individual conscience? Surely the church needs protecting? But who precisely is implied by ‘church’, and protecting from whom? If the practice of seen as merely 'cultural' does it harm anyone? Was it, is it worth the hassle of making a stand on this issue?

What would an Orthodox priest have said to that ruling?
What do the varieties of Protestants say about it now?
How do the unregistered churches deal with that problem?
Is there one right answer!?

This is not just a question about cultural practices and their roots or present participation in pagan religion and false worship, this is about the leadership of the church and qualifications for binding the consciences of other believers.

further to my final paragraph below/above

here's an entertaining review of the aforementioned film.

Of course the review is not completely fair - but it's funny!

The Roman Catholic Church

How very presumptuous of this small, generally ignorant Protestant to attempt a post on the sprawling mass that is the Roman Catholic Church. So, I shan't. But I do want to draw your attention to one of the many crises, potential scandals, bubbling arguments and frankly bizarre episodes in its local and corporate life and insider commentary on that.

In other words, take a look at this mess.

The Rape of the Soul - a documentary made by a devout Catholic claiming to expose hidden, embedded images of a highly dubious nature in lots of (Catholic) religious art, old and new.

When I've finished watching it, I may comment further on its contents.

The release and promotion of the film has apparently caused some people to lose their jobs in the Archdiocese of Toronto. It seems to have exposed the tensions between traditionalists and conciliarists (those who think Vatican II was and was not a good idea, to put it crudely) which can be seen between the lines and sometimes in the lines of this discussion thread.

Remarkably, some people in this discussion thread who believe that the film is basically rubbish claim that it must be a fundamentalist [read, "Protestants we don't like"] plot to discredit the church. Having heard him and read his own contributions to a favourable review and interview, I seriously doubt whether Michael A. Calace (producer, writer, director...) is a Protestant!

Following up a few leads on this film has opened my eyes to yet more of the diversity that exists among professing Christians, has reminded me that in the eyes of the conservatives in the 'historic' churches [for want of a better term] I am probably not going to heaven (a funny feeling for a pretty conservative, exclusivist, evangelical Protestant, let me tell you), and made me think again about art and what it has to do with anything.

If you have a spare couple of hours, the film is... probably not worth watching, if I'm honest. Although it has undoubted qualities (as well as some poor structuring, lots of rambling, tacky music, leaps of logic, and worse), taught me a few things and has sparked off interesting thoughts, it is questionable as to whether evangelicals need to be exposed to discussions of possible obscen1ty in art that is not part of their tradition or worship.