“The Father does not judge anyone but he has given all judgment to his Son [. . .] because he is the Son of Man. It is today, in the present, that our future destiny is decided. It is through our actual behavior in this life that we decide our eternal fate. In the twilight of our days on earth, when we are about to die, we shall be judged on the basis of our similarity to the child whose birth shall occur in the plain grotto in Bethlehem since it is He who is the God-given standard by which humanity shall live. The Father who is Heaven,who through the birth of His one and only Begotten Son has shown us His merciful love, calls upon us to follow His steps and turn our lives, as He did, into a gift of love.”–Pope Benedict XVI on Monday, December 10
Exhibit 2:
The challenge is to let our seasonal “seeing” transform the way we meet our neighbors through the rest of the year, and through all the coming years. How might we begin to see that child in those around us: strangers and aliens (both Immanuel and Immigrants); wanderers (Homeless, like Mary and Joseph, for whom there was no room); widows and orphans (Social Outcasts); babe born in Bethlehem (Palestinian and Israeli alike; or the boy babies whom both Pharaoh and Herod sought to kill); divine feeder of thousands (Soup Kitchen worker); and savior of the world (Peacemaker, Bringer of Justice for All, Reconciler, Just and Gracious Lawgiver…). If God comes among us as a helpless child, then the divine presence is truly all around us.–From Katherine Jefferts-Schori’s Christmas
Message to TEC
Compare and contrast these two. What are the differences offered between them? I am going to wait a day or so for comments, and weigh in as to what I see as the biggest difference. This could be fun.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
December 20, 2007 at 3:41 pm
You know, I don’t have a problem with either of those statements.
That’s a wonderful thing about the Catholic faith. We proclaim both of the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”
As long as the first of those two is given primacy (for it is the foundation of the second) I think we’re good.
On further reflection, I find that the first one is superior, however, because it implicitly contains both the commandments. The call to imitate Christ is precisely a call to obey those commandments.
Also, Benedict’s exhortation is more timeless and universal where the second one is very much about a certain time and place. Of course, thankfully, the Holy Father is speaking to a much larger and truly more diverse flock. :)
December 20, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Both are wonderful. Thank you for sharing.
December 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Well, one is showing the Traditional apostolic teaching and the latter shows the new Christ, the “cosmic Christ” heresy.
I choose the former
Dave
December 20, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Forgive a Lutheran for interpreting the Bible here, but last time I read the Gospels it didn’t say anything about Mary, Joseph or Jesus being homeless. They were stranded travelers. They were no more homeless than I was the year I got stuck overnight in the Dallas airport at Christmas because all the local hotels were booked.
December 20, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with either statement. Of course, as Catholics, we will give greater heed to the words of the Supreme Pontiff.
Now, I absolutely loathe the Episcopal church, don’t get me wrong, but…in this particular case and with the words shown…I wholeheartedly agree. We ARE to see Christ in those around us…both those who are needy and those who do good in His Name. I don’t see the problem there.
Now, I have a question, seriously…What is the “Cosmic Christ heresy”. That’s a new one on me. Good grief, don’t tell me someone came up with a new one!
December 20, 2007 at 7:40 pm
No, actually, the “Cosmic Christ” heresy was out in the late 1800’s, condemned by the Church. However, has been revived by many Catholic Scholars like Rahner, etc.
Actually, it started to creep back into the Catholic Church back in the 1950’s. After Vatican II, it exploded.
For example, if you are Catholic and you own a New American Bible or New Jerusalem Bible, you will notice that the introductory notes and footnotes include higher criticism and the cosmic Christ teaching.
This teaching is summed up like this:
Christ is the superman, who draws all do himself, the whole world, humans and creation itself is evolving towards Christ, humanity is evolving into another form, and that humanity would be united to one divine force: Jesus Christ, the Superman, i.e., the “Cosmic Christ” bringing all of humanity to himself, this is the true coming of Christ.
So instead of Conversion by faith in Christ, the true historical Christ, who was God and man, through the Sacraments of the Church, this teaching gears more towards building a solidarity amongst all men, a unity of all men through love, solving problems of hunger, poverty, disease, basically creating a new race of humans which would be void of original sin, and becoming more like Christ. Thus, this is the redemption of mankind and all creation.
Such teaching is not new and is not uncommon in Catholic seminaries.
Dave
December 20, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I have to agree with the other commenters that the message of Presiding Bishop Schori is not problematic simply on account of what she says. Perhaps it is said from the influence of progressive theology, but I can’t say it is necessarily bad, although as Luther Punk rightly points out, Mary and Joseph were not homeless. If anything, the Christmas message relates more to travelers who happen to be in a town when a massive convention is going on ;).
December 20, 2007 at 9:08 pm
My initial reaction is that Schori’s message is poorly written and lacking in substance, while Benedict’s is the opposite.
December 20, 2007 at 9:19 pm
She’s a lightweight. She was the marginally successful “bishop” of a tiny, tiny diocese who owes her election to nothing more than political correctness run amuck.
Interestingly enough, the one minority group she doesn’t seem to want to serve (and certainly didn’t address in her message) are the conservatives left in the Episcopal church.
Sad.
December 20, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Dave (318@Nice),
Thank you for the explanation. I’d just never heard it called that before, but I do know what ur talking about now.
I guess I just didn’t see that in the lady’s words quoted, but I DO know that many, many believe the silliness ur talking about.
For ME, the term “Cosmic Christ” has nothing to do with the heresy you mentioned but means, as St. Paul tells us, that Christ now “fills all things with Himself” and “upholds the world with His word of power”. The Cosmic Christ teaching you mentioned is, of course, the rankest heresy.
December 21, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sadly, Bishop Schori’s message reminds me of every Christmas homily I have ever heard in the Catholic Church, except for last year, when I heard an FSSP homily.
December 21, 2007 at 11:52 am
Kind of like the typical Anglican:
“let’s be nice to each other because nice Jesus was nice and let’s feel nicelly fuzzy and warm about it.”
Wasn’t it something like the pamphlet that the Anglican hierarchy released last Christmas (or was it Easter?)
December 21, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I will take a stab at it. First, let me say that I dont believe KJS’s statement to be wrong on the face of it–it is similar to Mother Teresa’s point of view in teaching us to care for Christ in the disgise of the poor. KJS’s statement has metaphorical flaws as have already been pointed out and she picks and chooses which metaphors to apply. Notice she did not speak of Christ the unborn child in the womb whom his unwed mother kept at all costs.
So, the principle difference I can see in the two quotes is that Benedict describes Christ’s action for the sake of eternity, while KJS describes Christ’s action for the sake of this world only, and only from a liberal political point of view. Benedict’s Christ is moral as well as spiritual–be like Christ in every way and all will be well in the Kingdom not of this world. KJS’s Christ is less moral than moralistic–get on board the liberal agenda and all will be well on planet earth.
KJS’s image of Christ is that he agrees with her politics. Benedict’s image of Christ is that he is the one to follow and imitate wherever he may lead regardless of politics.
For Benedict, Christ is sovereign and irreducible to an agenda, a plan. For KJS, Christ is the examplar of her particular plan and vision for the world.
Christ should use us, rather than us use him… I could go on and on and on.
Merry Christmas and God Bless you all.
December 21, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I usually evaluate statements like these the same way my teachers encouraged me to evaluate sermons.
Start by asking the simple question, “So, where’s the Gospel in this?”
December 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm
All we non-Epicopalian Anglicans winch a bit every time Kate gets featured.
Heavy sigh
+Frederick Fick
December 24, 2007 at 11:45 am
After dragging my feet for a few days I finally got around to posting my response on this. I did so on a new entry: Light on Christmas