Today, from John Allen

Two pieces of interest to me, from John Allen's column this week (via Amy Welborn):

Now that the dust has begun to settle on Islamic reaction to Benedict's lecture at Regensburg, other aspects of his message that day may begin to come into view - a welcome development, given that the bulk of the lecture was devoted to the relationship between faith and reason, having nothing in particular to do with Islam.

One critical reaction comes from Richard Gaillardetz, the Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Toledo. Gaillardetz writes:

Most commentators have overlooked a provocative claim in his address that articulates a fundamental - and to my view quite troubling - element of Pope Benedict's theological vision. … The pope makes the assertion that because Greek influence can already be seen in the Old Testament, and because the New Testament was written in Greek, Christianity is inextricably tied to the "Greek spirit." He rejects out of hand the process of "de-hellenization," the history of which he maps out in three stages. His historical schematization of that process is, I believe, sweeping and simplistic, but that is an argument for another day.

Particularly disconcerting is his account of the third stage of the process, in which many scholars have differentiated between the inherent revelatory and salvific significance of Jesus of Nazareth, and the ways in which the Christ event was quickly inculturated in a Hellenistic milieu. He describes this approach as "coarse and lacking in precision." He then suggests that the early adoption of a Greco-Roman world view is an essential and providential development in the history of Christianity. This assertion constitutes a huge theological leap that is in no way substantiated through careful theological argumentation. Nowhere does he justify why this moment of Hellenistic inculturation transcends the realm of historical contingency to enter into divine providence. In the pope's encomium to the "Greek spirit" one almost forgets that the Word became flesh as a Galilean Jew and not a citizen of Athens!

The pope's views on this topic are of great consequence for the larger church. I recently read through three volumes of groundbreaking documentation regarding the work of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences produced over the past three decades. That reading, accompanied by my recent visit to East Asia, has reinforced in me a wonderful appreciation for "the new way of being church" that so many Asian leaders have celebrated. I had a similar experience regarding the birth of an authentically African Christianity emerging on that continent. Much of what is developing theologically in those two regions is undercut by the pope's insistence on the normativity of a Greek philosophical articulation of the faith. The pope clearly believes that the intellectual and cultural synthesis that was achieved in Europe over the course of two millennia is normative for the rest of the church. Such a view leaves little room for substantive processes of local inculturation.

In the wake of Vatican II, Karl Rahner famously claimed that the most important contribution of the council was the fact that it had gently set aside that missiological mentality which saw the church essentially as a "Western European export firm" and began to move toward becoming a genuine world church (Weltkirche). The pope's recent address articulated a central feature of his ecclesiological vision, a vision far closer to the European export firm than the world church that Rahner believed was a-borning.

I am grateful for much that this new papacy has brought us: a more measured wielding of papal authority, a more modest public papal profile, a greater theological depth in papal reflections. But now, at a time when our church is bursting with new vitality and fresh insight in places like Africa, we have a pope who seems incapable of breaking out of his European intellectual milieu.

Whatever one makes of Gaillardetz's analysis - and he would be the first to recognize the need for further discussion - it illustrates the sort of reflection on the heart of the Regensburg address one hopes will now emerge.

No link or reference for the source of the quotation. Dr. Richard Gaillardetz's homepage
Christopher Zehnder's reactions to a talk given by the good academic.

The classical heritage of the Church is an obstacle to inculturation! Down with the writings of dead white men. (Although the writings of living white men in support of inculturation are ok!)
Dr. Gaillardetz appears to be a typical "Catholic" progressive theologian... pretty much like our visitor last year, Fr. Mario. Those who wish to be more open-minded about the subject should read Robert Louis Wilken's The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (Dr. Wilken will be coming to BC in November for a talk) or Jarsolav Pelikan's Christianity and Classical Culture. I'm not going to look at Pope Benedict's talk of hellenization, maybe some other time.

I'll just comment briefly on this passage:

I had a similar experience regarding the birth of an authentically African Christianity emerging on that continent. Much of what is developing theologically in those two regions is undercut by the pope's insistence on the normativity of a Greek philosophical articulation of the faith. The pope clearly believes that the intellectual and cultural synthesis that was achieved in Europe over the course of two millennia is normative for the rest of the church. Such a view leaves little room for substantive processes of local inculturation.

And pray tell, what impact would inculturation have on theology? How different would an African or Asian theology be from Latin theology? Need theology be reduced to metaphor and figurative language? "Greek philosophical articulation of the faith"--this charge is not new--it's been levelled also by Orthodox polemicists.

(Can one make a distinction between positive and speculative theology in the program of these "theologians"?)

What can we come to know? And in theology do we make use of what reason understands by its own light? If all we know are concepts or ideas (the conceptualist or idealistic account of reason), then what are the implications of this for Tradition, and the virtue of Faith? If the best in Greek philosophy is not in accordance with reason, then by what rational standard does one make this judgment? If, on the other hand, one arbitrarily decides that one "conceptual system" is as good as another, without any rational basis for this judgment, can there be any possibility of convincing him of his error? Is the good academic showing a willful ignorance and inability to examine his presuppositions about philosophy? After all, if I should reject Greek philosophy, why should I accept your justification for that rejection, if that in turn is based on assumptions either taken from or in harmony with modern Western philosophy (particularly epistemology)? What makes your understanding of "universal reason" better than the Greek understanding? Better to just have a fool sacked then to waste time teaching him.

Latin theology is normative? In what sense? If by normative one means that students should learn from the richness of the Latin theological tradition, why not? If the competent Church authority judges that the tradition has much to offer and therefore recommends it, then should we not heed the advice? Why use the word "normative" unless one having an allergic reaction to authority? It's not like the Church imposes a "rule of theology" on theologians, under threat of punishment.

Is dialogue moving forward?
John Allen also writes about the recent meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church:

After a lengthy hiatus, the official Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic met for the ninth time Sept. 18-25 in Belgrade, Serbia.

In a joint statement afterwards, participants said their time together "was marked by a spirit of friendship and trustful collaboration."

Consulting with experts on Catholic/Orthodox relations, most said the Belgrade session was a vast improvement upon the infamous 2001 gathering in Emmitsburg, Maryland, which ended in paralysis following heated debates over proselytism and the status of Eastern rite churches in communion with Rome (which the Orthodox generally call "uniate" churches).

Experts pointed to four indications of progress.

First, virtually every Orthodox church was represented, a departure from past gatherings when a handful of Orthodox bodies chose not to participate for one reason or another.

Second, the meeting returned to the theological agenda originally set in 1990. The focal point was a draft document, The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church, examining the local, regional and universal levels. A joint committee was created to revise the document, which will be studied again in 2007.

Third, the fact that the commission agreed to meet again next year, in a session hosted by the Catholic side, suggests eagerness to continue the discussion, since the normal rhythm is every two years.

Fourth, the warm welcome given the Joint Commission in Serbia itself was itself encouraging. Both the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the prime minister of Serbia welcomed it, gestures that would have been unthinkable amid tensions surrounding the wars of the Yugoslav succession.

None of this is to suggest, however, that the gathering was entirely pacific.

Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria protested afterwards against the use of voting instead of consensus, especially with regard to a section of the draft document on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. It states, among other things, that after the break in communion between East and West in the ninth century, "an 'Ecumenical Council' in the strong sense became impossible," but "both Churches continued to hold 'general' councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople."

Predictably, the Russian Orthodox objected to this formula, which they contend assigns too much preeminence to Constantinople.

Metropolitan John of Pergamon, co-chair for the Orthodox side and a member of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, suggested a compromise that was unacceptable to the Russian Orthodox. The Catholic co-chair, Cardinal Walter Kasper, put the matter to a vote, and the majority of the Orthodox participants voted in favor of the Metropolitan's position.

Hilarion, however, insisted that no vote could force a church to betray its ecclesiological self-understanding, especially to accept a role for the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East analogous to that played by the pope in the West. Kasper indicated that he would take the protest under consideration at the 2007 meeting.

Links:
SCOBA (Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas)
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
(Here one can find some documents pertaining to the dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East and that with the ancient Churches of the East)