An excellent discourse, Dean Scott!   Thanks for posting it.  Father McBrien 
spotlights hierarchical diminution of the counter-Reformation  allowed by 
Vatican II.  One need only read "The Opus Dei Code"--the cover story of the 
24 April 2006 issue of Time Magazine--to elaborate on McBrien's thesis.  [Or 
go to www.odan.org  , the "Opus Dei Awareness Network."] The problem, I 
fear, is  Rome's insistence of its "infallible Magesterium"--a stubborn 
proclivity of "monarchial hierarchs"... historically exemplified by many 
doctrinal excesses:  Transubstantion (the Real Objective Presence),  "ex 
opere operato," and "sub-deification of Mary and other saints, "inter alia." 
(Veneration of Mary, IMHO,  far more "latria" that "hyper-dulia.")

Such "excesses" require pages of rhetorical circumlocution in futile 
attempts--again, IMHO-- to accommodate ancient church dogma to contemporary 
understanding.  As C. B. Moss writes:  "Latin Christians in the Dark Ages, 
who could not understand philosophical distinctions, took our Lord's words 
["This is my body...This is my blood.."] quite literally...Hence arose the 
legends of bleeding Hosts, Hosts which turned into a Child in the priest's 
hand, etc. [and] ...to get rid of this materialist doctrine without 
rejecting the traditional belief of the Church, [medieval thinkers] devised 
the theory of Transubstantiation...which was based upon Aristotle...that 
everything ...is composed of 'substance' and 'accidents'...a very brilliant 
theory...defined as a dogma by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).  ...it is 
not a dogma of the Orthodox Communion. Transubstantiation is rejected by the 
Anglican Communion...'and hath given occasion to many superstitions' 
(Article 28).  ...Transubstantiation requires us to accept the medieval 
theory of 'substance'' and 'accident'...not part of the Christian 
faith...and most modern philosophers ... maintain that there is no such 
thing as 'substance' in this sense...but the Roman Communion requires the 
phbilosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas to be taught in all its colleges, and 
disapproves of any other, from which it seems that those who accept 
Transubstantiation can hardly avoid the medieval philosophy."

Dean Scott, in a second post, you mention the Coptic Orthodox Church, a 
fascinating group indeed, the chief representation of Christianity in Muslim 
Egypt. (Before the Arab conquest in the 7th Century, the people of Egypt 
identified themselves and their language in Greek as "Aigyptios," (Arabic 
"gibt," Westernized as Copt).  From the 5th Century on, they became 
"Monophysite."  In 1741, Athanasius, a Coptic Monophysite  bishop, converted 
to Roman Catholicism, and in 1895, Pope Leo XIII divided the 5,000 Catholic 
Copts into three dioeceses of the Alexandrian Rite.  The Coptic Church came 
to call themselves "Coptic Orthodox" to distinguish themselves from Copts 
who had become RCs and from Egyptian Eastern Orthodox, who were mostly 
Greek.  The Ethiopian, Armenian, and Syrian Orthodox Churches are in 
communion with the Coptic Church, whose "patriarch of Alexandria and all 
Egypt" resides in Cairo.  (By the way, my favorite cross is a large "James 
Avery" Coptic cross...an "ankh"...a choice that nothing to do with 
theology...I just like its design! ) Regards.  KnoxDuncan@...




 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "charles scott" <crscottblu@...>
To: "faith life" <faithandlife@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: [FaithandLife] Dialogue? among the RCs


> Published: Friday, September 15, 2006
> Dialogue in the Church
> By Father Richard P. McBrien
>
> The promotion of dialogue within and beyond the
> Catholic Church was
> one of the highest priorities of the Second Vatican
> Council. In recent
> years, a few commentators have been bemoaning the
> absence of dialogue
> in the Church, insisting that it is the only antidote
> to what they see
> as a growing polarization within the Church.
>
> It should go without saying that dialogue is a good
> thing. Its
> opposite is monologue. No one likes to be subjected to
> a one-way
> conversation or to be a student in a course that does
> not permit
> questions, much less one where the raising of
> questions is considered
> a punishable offense.
>
> That said, some recent calls for more dialogue in the
> Church have a
> troubling side. Oddly enough, these calls have come
> mainly from the
> more conservative side of the Catholic community.
>
> These advocates of dialogue make two assumptions:
> first, that there
> are two roughly co-equal groups in conflict with one
> another in the
> Catholic Church --- liberals and ultra-conservatives
> --- while the
> broad center (in which they implicitly place
> themselves) is blessedly
> free of polarizing tendencies; and, second, that both
> sides are
> equally at fault because they are more interested in
> stereotyping the
> other than in entering into constructive conversation.
>
> Both assumptions are subject to challenge. There are
> not two co-equal
> groups at logger-heads in the Catholic Church today,
> the one liberal
> and the other ultra-conservative. Liberal Catholics
> (by whatever name)
> constitute the great majority of today's most active
> Catholics. Many
> were formed by Vatican II and others have grown up in
> a Church shaped
> by it.
>
> Like the council itself, they hold that the Church is
> the People of
> God and that they --- women and men alike --- have an
> integral role to
> play in its mission and ministries. They are generally
> happy with the
> liturgy as renewed and reformed by the council, except
> perhaps for
> some of the homilies and music. But they would not
> want to return to
> the Latin Mass or to a style of worship focused on the
> priest rather
> than the whole congregation.
>
> Significantly, ultra-conservative Catholics, who have
> never been
> comfortable with the changes brought about by Vatican
> II, are a small,
> if often vocal, minority in the Church. This group has
> no numerical
> equivalency with the broad cross-section of Catholics
> who have been
> generally supportive of the council and its reforms.
>
> While it is unfortunately the case that
> ultra-conservative Catholics
> sometimes create a hostile atmosphere in parishes and
> dioceses,
> directing their fire at pastors who do not observe the
> rubrics of the
> Mass in every detail or who support religious
> education programs that
> reflect modern theological, biblical and pedagogical
> scholarship, the
> same is generally not true of the broad cross-section
> of Catholics
> formed by Vatican II.
>
> They may become exasperated and even angered by the
> various forms of
> harassment they receive from fellow Catholics on the
> far right, but
> they have no wish to drive them out of the Church ---
> nor to fight
> with them, for that matter.
>
> The second assumption of today's pro-dialogue
> commentators is that
> dialogue between these two groups would be possible if
> both would just
> lay down their arms and agree to talk with one another
> in a mutually
> respectful way.
>
> But if polarization occurs, as they say, in the
> absence of dialogue,
> dialogue, in turn, presupposes some measure of
> equality. Dialogue
> cannot happen if one side controls the agenda, the
> invitation list and
> the microphones, and also has the power to reward or
> punish
> participants. Dialogue requires a level playing field.
>
> The unequal distribution of power in the Church today
> makes dialogue
> difficult, if not impossible. It came about because of
> the pattern of
> episcopal appointments and promotions that was
> operative during the
> previous pontificate.
>
> The laity, who once had a say even in the election of
> popes, have long
> since been consigned to the lowest level of the
> ecclesiastical pyramid
> --- passive recipients of spiritual benefits and moral
> direction from
> on high.
>
> This pyramidal system was reformed in principle by the
> Second Vatican
> Council, particularly with its doctrine of
> collegiality, but
> collegiality gave way in the previous pontificate to a
> restoration of
> centralized papal authority.
>
> Today's internal conflicts are the result, in large
> part, of a
> deliberate pattern of episcopal appointments that has
> not only shifted
> the balance of power disproportionately in favor of
> one small faction
> in the Church, but has at the same time deliberately
> withheld pastoral
> authority from those in the Church's broad center ---
> pastorally adept
> moderates, of left and right alike, who could promote
> real dialogue in
> the Church.
>
> Many look to Pope Benedict XVI in hope.
>
> Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien
> Professor of Theology
> at the University of Notre Dame.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>
>