"One might say that a church which seeks above all to be attractive would already be on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for itself, does not work to increase its numbers so as to have more power. The Church is at the service of Another; it does not serve itself, seeking to be a strong body, but it strives to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ accessible, the great truths, the great powers of love and of reconciliation that appeared in this figure and that come always from the presence of Jesus Christ. In this sense, the Church does not seek to be attractive, but rather to make herself transparent for Jesus Christ. And in the measure in which the Church is not for herself, as a strong and powerful body in the world, that wishes to have power, but simply is herself the voice of Another, she becomes truly transparent to the great figure of Jesus Christ and the great truths that he has brought to humanity…"Pope Benedict XVI from an interview given on 16th September 2010. Comment here
Tu es Petrus: James MacMillan
Surely the key words here are 'accessible' and 'transparent'?
ReplyDeleteVenno
Rather than 'love' and 'reconciliation?'
ReplyDeleteFor me MacMillan's magnificent Tu es Petrus could have been announcing the second coming before the breathtakingly serene Introit as His Holiness entered looking just that.
ReplyDeletePlease God his promised Ordinariate will not lead to disappointment for those on the margins.
'Love' and 'reconcilation' apply to the One whose presence the Church should be making 'accessible' and ' transparent'.
ReplyDeleteVenno
Yes, indeed, and I'm sure Pope Benedict himself would agree. But, with respect, accessiblity and transparency are rather like motherhood and apple pie; it's hard to find anyone who is against them. The differences among us only start to become apparent when an attempt is made at definition. I'm not sure where that gets us, but....?
ReplyDeleteHow sure are you that Pope Benedict would agree?
ReplyDeleteIsn't he actually saying that these 'motherhood and apple pie' concepts are, instead of being taken for granted (as the simile suggests), being defined in ways which lead to unnecessary differences?
If they are to be true to the simplicity of the original concept, the attempts at definition must be aimed at drawing out unity rather than difference.
Venno