Tag: Unity

One Church, One Faith, One Lord

For the first ten years of my life, I was a city dweller and lived in an apartment house.
   A curious word, when you think about it—a kind of “house” [singular] made up of separate “apartments” [plural].
   But, after all, a house is a dwelling made up of separate rooms. So, an apartment house is a dwelling made up of separate apartments.
   The apartment house dwellers have some sense of solidarity since they live in the same building with the same identifying address—but, they have a sense of separateness too since the apartments vary in size, furnishings, and inhabitants!
   To make it a tad more complicated, sometimes apartment houses themselves are grouped together, to be identified as neighborhoods—different clusters of buildings in the one and the same city or town.
   As a kid, growing up, I certainly, clearly knew what apartment and which house I lived in, what neighborhood and (since it was in New York City) what borough we lived in, and of course what city, state, and country we lived it—and, as I learned more about geography, what continent and part of the world as well.
   Later on, I learned about the world as one of many planets in the same solar system, our solar system as one of many in the same galaxy, and the many galaxies as well…
   If your life started out in a very different situation—for example, on a large estate or ranch in a wide-open sector of the country—you might find the city lifestyle and mentality somewhat strange and hard to understand. And, you might even be more suspicious of strangers than a city dweller who encounters them all the time.
   What stirred up all these odd thoughts for me was the concluding refrain of each stanza of a hymn in the Divine Office: “One church, one faith, one lord”

   When we say, “one church” what do we mean? Is it the church we’re used to and were raised in? Is it the local parish or diocese? Is it the particular branch of Christianity we belong to?
   Is our one church more like an historic dwelling on a huge estate or more like an apartment house with a lot of different dwellers, but sharing the same address.
   Does one church mean everybody prays, believes, and behaves the same (or at least tries too)? Or, can one church include a wide variety of languages, ideas, customs, rules, and regulations.
   For many centuries, long ago, people believed in the existence of many gods. This, of course, invited a difference of opinion about right and wrong, how to worship, and a host of other things.
   But, if people believe in only one god, they must be actually believing in the one and the same god no matter what different names, titles, prayers, customs, and usages they might have and observe.
   And, it follows, that the one and the same God isn’t giving contradictory commandments, rules, and teachings to different groups of believers. It’s got to be the misunderstandings of the different groups of believers among themselves.
   Religiously, we are like dwellers in an apartment house! We live next door to one another, but in the same dwelling. Apartments can and may be different in size, furnishings, and number and kinds of people, but all share the same address.
   We’re fellow dwellers and citizens in the same town and place. We’re all neighbors. We live together in the same world with the one and same God!


11 December 2022

Superus, Superior, Supremus

Positive: superus -a -um, situated above, upper, higher.
Comparative: superior -ius, of place: higher, upper; of time: earlier, former, past: of rank: higher, greater.
Superlative: supremus -a -um, of place: highest, uppermost; of time or succession: last, final: of degree: highest, greatest; of rank: highest.

   As you can see from the Latin above, the similar words in English haven’t changed in meaning very much over the centuries. For instance, supreme is defined as:
   – highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief.
   – of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc.
   – greatest, utmost, or extreme.
   – last or final; ultimate.
   Although sometimes we over-use the word or its derivatives, we’re always ranking things, places, ideas, values, scores, athletes, office-holders, and whatnot. But, no matter what we’re ranking, you can’t have more than one supreme at a time!
   Sometimes we speak of God as the Supreme Being. That sort of presumes that on a scale or ranking of gods or divinities, there’s one on top!
   Actually, in ancient times it was common among many peoples and in many places to worship multiple gods or divinities and to rank them. For example, for the Romans, the highest ranking, most powerful god was Jupiter. (That why the biggest planet in our solar system was named after him!)
   When you study the Bible, you learn of the gradual development of monotheism—the realization that there is only one god.
   Abraham and his immediate descendants worshiped and obeyed a god they thought of as their personal or family or tribal god. He was theirs and guided and protected them.

   It was a long, slow development to arrive at the belief or realization that there is only one God and that no other gods exist at all.
   Even so, still among monotheistic believers there are some lingering, sort of polytheistic attitudes.
   For example, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that there is only one God, the Supreme Being—and there can’t be three different Supreme Beings.
   So, if all three are worshiping the one God, they are worshiping the same God.
   If good Jews, Christians, and Muslims aspire to live on with God someday, they will be living together. If their destiny is to be living together, why have they treated each other so badly so often?
   They are fellow creations of the one and same God, even though they may use different names for God, worship God in different ways, and have different customs.
   And, of course, there are other religions and other ways of worshiping the one and same God, and the same applies to them.
   We shouldn’t disparage worshiping the one and same God in different places or using different languages and practices.
   We shouldn’t consider people who misunderstand or betray the teachings of the one and same God as though they were the truest and best exponents of the one God’s values and teachings.
   We shouldn’t keep fighting over possession and control of parts of the one world, if we truly believe that the one and same God made it to be shared by all.
   Above all, we should treat every other person as a brother or sister, created by the one and same God to live with us in the one and same world.


13 February 2022

The Early Christian Community

The first summary description of life in the early Christian community is found in the Acts of the Apostles (2:42-47):

They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. (Acts 2:42)

   – The teaching of the apostles referred to instructions for the members of the Christian community, explaining the scriptures in the light of the life and teachings of Jesus.
   – The communal life (or brotherhood or fellowship) referred to the sharing of goods and possessions which expressed and strengthened the community (or communion) of spirit.
   – The breaking of the bread referred to the Jewish meal at which the presider pronounces a blessing before dividing the bread (or distributing the food). For the early Christians, it denoted the Eucharist.
   – The prayers referred to the prayers in common (later, especially, the prayers of the Divine Liturgy or Mass).
   Verse 46 says:

Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.

   It seems to refer to a simpler version of what later evolved into what we now call the Divine Liturgy or Mass, before it became elaborated with ritual ceremonies and vesture and presided only by an ordained minister.
   This “communion” implied not only communion with the Lord, but also the communion of their common faith and fidelity to the apostolic teachings, of their sharing of goods and unity of spirit, and of their remembrance and thanksgiving for salvation in Jesus and unity in the one Spirit.

   “Common”—“communal”—“community”—“communion”—even “communism” are all related words, although they certainly have a very wide range of meanings and usages nowadays.
   But, it helps to know what they share in their root meanings and how they have evolved and changed in their usage. It may help us to use and understand them better.
   Under Pope Pius XII, archeological investigations were initiated to unearth the grave and relics of St. Peter the Apostle.
   According to tradition, the main altar of St. Peter’s basilica was built over his tomb.
   Researchers began to explore the area.
   Beneath today’s basilica were the remains of the first basilica. Beneath the remains of that Constantinian era basilica were the remains of a much earlier monument.
   That monument was built in a Roman cemetery, even damaging some of the nearby graves. The cemetery was next to the Circus of Nero on a road out of the city near the Vatican hill.
   How hard it is to imagine the original site of Peter’s crucifixion and burial as one stands in the great basilica of our day—but it is the very place!
   As the centuries passed and as one structure was built on and elaborated over another it became harder and harder to recognize the grave site itself.
   Our words are like that, especially our religious words. They sometimes have been elaborated and embellished, successively enlarged and rebuilt almost to the point that it’s hard to imagine their original meanings.
   Dig carefully for the original sense, but don’t destroy all the good, grandeur and development over the centuries!


2 May 2021

Be Children No Longer

I think St. Paul, were he living in our times, would have appreciated the 1976 film, “Network”, a satirical comedy-drama about the television industry.
The movie received widespread critical acclaim, four Academy Awards, and several other honors. The plot concerned the television industry and how more and more shock, violence, and fantasy improved audience share and ratings.
Television began as a news and entertainment vehicle, originally with only one or a very few channels. Nowadays, with hundreds of channels to choose from, both news and entertainment programs are competing for audience share and ratings—and they seem to be blending.
Often “news” programs seek to impact, titillate, and entertain, and “entertainment” programs, to include critical news.
And, of course, just as there are hundreds of channels, there are hundreds of differing points of view being broadcast in both news and entertainment.
When Paul wrote his letter to the Christian community in Ephesus, probably around the year 62, concerned about divisions and dissensions there, he counseled them:
“…to live a life worthy of the calling you have received, with perfect humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another lovingly. Make every effort to preserve the unity which has the Spirit as its origin and peace as its binding force.” (4:1-3)
He also warned them to think critically and not to be easily swayed by clever and persuasive speakers:
“Let us then, be children no longer, tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine that originates in human trickery and skill in proposing error. Rather, let us profess the truth in love and grow to the full maturity of Christ…” (4:14-15)

The dictionary definition of “doctrine” is: 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government. 2. Something that is taught; teachings collectively. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.
But, by the way the word is used in Ephesians, I think it would include every wind and variation of news, propaganda, interpretation, explanation, opinion, analysis, statistics, and prediction that buffet each of us daily.
In that movie which Paul might have appreciated, the marketers of “news” would have understood what he meant by “human trickery and skill in proposing error”.
However, their defense might well have been that we’re a business; we have to be concerned about the bottom line. We’re not primarily teachers or preachers, we’re promoters. And, we need to be sensitive to the priorities of those who support us, who pay the bills.
If the priorities involve “truth”, then we’re for “truth”. But, of course, they might add, there are varieties and versions of “truth”, and we have a right to promote ours.
And, what would Paul say to that? Well, he already did: “Let us, then, be children no longer, tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine that originates in human trickery and skill in proposing error. Rather, let us profess the truth in love…”
Paul knew that “truth” can’t have varieties and versions, although perceptions of truth can. Because we don’t “know” something doesn’t mean it’s not real or doesn’t exist.
Grow up, Paul urges, “be children no longer…”


18 October 2020

Communion Is a Network

A turning point in the history of Christianity was its establishment as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity not only was tolerated but also became an integral part of the structure of civil society.
How did Christians see themselves and their interrelationships before being organized into territories (dioceses) under religious leaders recognized and empowered by the government?
Early Christianity did not have the complexity of structure we are familiar with now. Fundamentally, Christians understood themselves and recognized each other as disciples and followers of Jesus.
A “church” was a local assembly or community of believers, united in the Spirit and guided by duly constituted leaders, the successors of the Apostles and those appointed by them.
The bond of union of these local Christian communities was pax et communio. They communicated with each other by letters or delegates, recognizing each other as fellow believers and exchanging peace in the Lord.
The community of communities — the universal church — was held together in the early centuries not primarily by juridical or sacramental ties but by the action of the Holy Spirit and personal relationships among its members. This unity, as the word “communio” suggests, was nurtured by frequent and regular communication.
From this point of view, the church is a kind of network — a network of communication among its members with and in the Spirit of Jesus. This is a concept that today’s world understands very well. It is the essence of the internet, the powerful communication tool that is revolutionizing modern society.
The mysterium or complex reality of the church always can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, each with its own merit and validity.

Viewing the church as a communion of persons, as a communications network, can shed some new light on many issues.
For example, the question of the pastoral care of Eastern Catholics living outside their homelands: Traditionally, the jurisdiction of Eastern Catholic patriarchs is limited to their historical territories. From the perspective of the church as a personal network, geography is less significant and restriction of patriarchal authority, less appropriate.
Another example, the ancient principle of one bishop for each place: If participation and communication in a personal network is a defining element of a local church, then there is no problem in having many different personal networks, different churches, in the same geographic area.
Communio grows with increasing, deeper and more effective communication.
From this perspective, looking at Christian churches around the world that are overcoming their isolation one from the other and regularly and frequently communicating, the church of Christ is gradually becoming more and more “one.”
The challenge of establishing and developing interreligious relations is also a matter of extending communio — of increasing personal communication in spite of differences.
Through visits, dialogue, and sharing of resources as well as better understanding of ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences, personal networks can and will grow. Our goal should be to build networks that not only join together Christians and believers in the one God but also join together all men and women of good will — ultimately, the whole human family.


(Published as “Networking” in
one, 36:6, November 2010)

Nationality, Culture, and Religion

A priest friend of mine who was born in Israel and raised Jewish identifies himself in a very unusual way — he says by nationality I’m an Israeli, by culture I’m a Jew, and by religion I’m a Roman Catholic.
Before reacting to this startling statement of identity, it’s important to define the three key words. It’s a tricky business, because they frequently overlap.
– “Nationality” is becoming another word for citizenship — the country to which you legally belong. But, its root meaning has to do with the land of one’s birth; this implies ethnic identity.
– “Culture” can be used to refer to the customs, traditions, and values shared by a group of people at a certain point in time. There can also be subcultures within a dominant culture.
– “Religion” is the trickiest word. It may refer to belief as such; to a system of beliefs, worship and ethics; or to an organization or group which holds them in common.
In the southwestern Indian state of Kerala, you may meet ladies going to pray in gold-trimmed white saris, with ear lobes stretched by heavy golden bangles. A foreigner may think them Hindus, but they are Christians. It is their culture that appears Hindu.
For years in Germany, children born of Turkish immigrant parents were considered foreigners; now they can be German citizens. German identity is no longer limited to people with Nordic features or a common Germanic culture; now it also means those with the same citizenship.
Canadians describe themselves as “English” or “French.” This is a matter not just of language but of culture — and for separatists, of nationality. Paradoxically, immigrants from the world over are welcomed into both English and French Canada. Chinese-Canadians in Quebec or Ukrainian-Canadians in Alberta share the same citizenship, but not the same culture.

Historically, nationality, culture and religion tend to be mixed together. Many countries that label themselves by religion are really asserting the distinctive qualities of their cultural or national identity.
In the example of my friend, he lives in a “Jewish” state. Yet, one can hold Israeli nationality without professing the Jewish religion or being born of an ethnically Jewish family — some Israeli citizens are Muslim, Druze or Christian by religion, and one-fifth are born of ethnically Arab families.
Israel’s dominant culture is Western and Jewish. Although many Jewish Israelis are more culturally than religiously Jewish, most would object to anyone identifying himself as a Jew who professes another religion.
Israel’s Arab neighbors are similar. Except Lebanon, Arab countries identify themselves as Islamic, even though some are very secular. The dominant culture may be Arab and Islamic, but not all citizens are Muslim by religion. Also, many Muslim citizens are more culturally than religiously Muslim.
Traditionally, Western countries have been considered Christian — and similarly mixing religion with culture and nationality. Now, many embrace civic religious neutrality — the idea of separation of “church” and “state.”
Canada and the United States, for example, have pluralistic societies that consider cultural and religious diversity and freedom as desirable within the framework of a common citizenship and national identity.
This ideal is profoundly religious — not that all be the same, but that all may be one, united in diversity.
May we someday get beyond national differences too, and really join together the whole human family.



(Published in
one, 35:6, November 2009)

Religious Taxonomy

As scientists study the tremendous diversity of living things, they classify them into large families and various smaller groupings based on the similarities and relationships they discover among them. This system of classification is called taxonomy — from the Greek words taxis or arrangement and nomos or law.
With the passing of time and growth in scientific knowledge, the classifications become more sophisticated and less obvious.
For example, once dolphins, along with large fish, were classified as sea creatures based on the obvious similarity of living in the sea. Now, even school children know the difference between sea creatures that breathe with lungs and those that breath with gills. Dolphins are mammals, not fish.
Classifying dolphins — and seals, whales and walruses — as mammals is based on more than how they breathe. They also share a similar internal structure. That’s why bats are mammals and birds are not — even though they both have lungs and both fly.
Recently I took some visitors to the natural history museum. In the halls with enormous, towering skeletons of dinosaurs, an exhibit showing their relationships pointed out that their nearest living relatives are, surprisingly, birds.
Uncovering relationships like those between dinosaurs and birds means going much deeper in the search for similarities and commonalities, even to the level of DNA and genes.
Relationships at the genetic level upset a lot of common notions. For example, human beings are often classified into “races,” based on a superficial difference, the degree of skin coloration. At the deeper level, there are no basic differences among people at all. Also, surprisingly to some, present scholarship suggests East Africa as the likely place for human origins.

It is challenging to apply some of the same types of analysis to the classification of religions.
For example, Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism seem very different. Yet, the crucified Christ who has such a prominent place in Catholic piety and theology can only be fully understood in terms of the various sacrifices — Passover, atonement, sin offering, and thanksgiving — of the law of Moses, or the Torah, the heart of Judaism.
The origins of all forms of Christianity lie in Judaism. Early Christians were devout Jews who recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the hoped-for Messiah — in fact the very name Christian means “Messianist.” As time passed, they accepted non-Jews into their company. For Christians, this was a positive development. For Jews, this was a radical break and an abandonment of critically important values.
In this sense, a commonality among almost all Jews today is that they have not gone the way of the early Messianic Jews and those affiliated with them over the centuries — the Christians.
A solid religious taxonomy classifies Jews and Christians — and Muslims — into one large family, sometimes called the Abrahamic faiths. But often the appearance and behavior of contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims make it very hard to see the common roots and similarities.
There is a deep relationship among all believers in spite of their diverse religions. God is one, so all who seek him have much in common, no matter how strange they may seem, one to the other.
Taxonomy can be taxing.


(Published in
one, 34:6, November 2008)

Differentiation

Q. What’s the difference between a whiffenbird?
A. One leg’s both the same!

No, it doesn’t make any sense at all — it’s just an old nonsense riddle. On the other hand, maybe it does suggest something very sensible indeed — the absurdity of overemphasizing difference.
We seem to thrive on difference, for better or worse:

“I’m taller”—“He’s shorter”
“She’s fatter”—“I’m thinner”
“We’re richer”—“They’re poorer”
“He’s a slob”—“He’s a snob”
“She’s too pale”—“She’s too dark”
“They’ve got class”—“They have no class”
“He makes more”—“He makes less”
“I’m smarter”—“She’s dumber”
“They live better”—“We live worse”
“I’ve got friends”—“He has no friends”

After all, it’s differences that distinguish us one from the other. When we need to know exactly who someone is, we look for some unique expression of difference.
Fingerprints identify us. There are at least six billion people in the world today. That means there are at least sixty billion fingerprints. None of them is the same.
Modern technology looks for better identifiers inside us. The combination and sequencing of genes on each person’s chromosomes are unique, even though the number of chromosomes and most genes is common to all.
The Psalmist marveled at his uniqueness,

Truly you have formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.
I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made;
wonderful are all your works.

You are absolutely unique. So am I. But, it’s difficult to live in solitary splendor. That’s why we seek some common ground with others.
Alas, often the common ground we find is superficial. We opt for people who look like us, dress like us, or speak our language. But, common characteristics like these can mask profound differences of values, goals, and beliefs.
Our tendency to identify with superficial characteristics can work against our best interests in still other ways. There may be people with whom we have deep feelings, values, and commitments in common, but we don’t recognize them for who they really are — superficial differences put us off.
I may have more in common with a kind and loving foreigner whose dress and language are strange to me than I do with a scheming and selfish neighbor in my hometown.
I may have more in common with a sincere and profoundly religious Jew, Muslim, or Hindu than I do with a vain and hypocritical Christian who sings beside me in church.
It may turn out that I have more in common with the one I have been taught is my enemy than with the one I presume is my friend.
A good rule of thumb is to find the best and deepest common ground and act accordingly. For starters, we’re all God’s creatures, called to be his children, challenged to live as brothers and sisters and destined for eternal life — together!


(Published in
one, 31:2, March 2005)

Unity – Same Page or Same Place?

My dictionary defines a community as, “1. a) all the people living in a particular district, city, etc. b) the district, city, etc. where they live 2. a group of people living together as a smaller social unit within a larger one, and having interests, work, etc. in common . . .”
“Community” has a strong sense of place — of people living together. This comes from the word’s Latin root, the verb communire, which means to fortify thoroughly on all sides.
A good example of community in this sense is group of people living in a walled village, banded together in defense against a common enemy or threat.
More positively, a community may be a group of people who have so much in common that they want to be identified as such and distinguished from others.
Such like-minded people don’t have to be living in the same place or physically banded together. With the rapid advance of communications, the element of place — geography — is no longer important.
If you take territory away from the meaning of community, you have “a group of people [functioning] together as a smaller social unit within a larger one, and having interests, work, etc. in common.”
The best word to describe that kind of community is “network.”
Going back to the dictionary again, a network is, “1. any arrangement or fabric of parallel wires, threads, etc. crossed at regular intervals by others fastened to them so as to leave open spaces; netting; mesh 2. a thing resembling this in some way; specifically . . . a group, system, etc. of interconnected or cooperating individuals.”

The church has both kinds of communities — communities linked to place and communities as networks.
For example, there have always been territorial parishes (parishes defined by a geographic area) and personal parishes (parishes for certain groups of people with the same language, nationality, etc.). In practice, more and more people act as though their parish community is a network rather than a geographical area.
Authority can be exercised in both senses as well. For example, three patriarchs live in Damascus — Greek Orthodox, Melkite Greek Catholic, and Syrian Orthodox. Each is titled Patriarch of Antioch, but they are spiritual leaders of separate networks of Christians, not of all the Christians who live in the one place.
Religious communities have always been considered groups of people united by a common spirituality and tasks, even though they may be scattered all about.
Actually, a good model for the whole church is that of a network, even a network of networks. From this point of view, Christian unity is all about building interconnections and cooperation.
This is almost the way church unity was described in the early centuries. Unity was considered to exist if there was “peace and communion” among the churches.
Banded together behind common walls doesn’t make for unity, but functioning together in the Spirit of the Lord does.


(Published as “Networks” in
CNEWA World, 30:3, May 2004)

Already But Not Yet

Many years ago Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. wrote a landmark book about a complex topic, the theology of Church. Translated into many languages, Models of the Church stimulated profound thinking about the nature of the Church.
Cardinal Dulles suggested that better to appreciate the profound theological reality and mystery of the Church, we draw on analogies afforded by our experience — utilizing a variety of approaches or models to describe different aspects of the Church.
His book proposed five models for understanding the Church: the Church as institution, as mystical communion, as sacrament, as herald, and as servant. Each of these leads to a different emphasis in the quest for Church unity.
Concern for the institutional aspect of Church tends to see unity in very juridical terms. Historically, this was defined as the subordination of all the faithful to one and the same teaching authority, especially the Roman Pontiff.
The community model of Church situates unity more in the heart — an interior union of mutual charity leading to a communion of friends — while the sacramental model of Church places a high emphasis on holiness. The Church must be, in the word of Vatican II, “a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men.”
From the point of view of heralding the Gospel, it is solidarity in preaching the Word of God that lies at the heart of the unity of the Church. The Church as servant implies that it is the common witness of charity and selfless love that is the core of Church unity.

How much Church unity already exists and how much does not yet exist?
The Pope’s visit to Damascus, where he was warmly received by the Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Melkite Greek Catholics was a good case in point.
If unity means a uniformity of ecclesiastical discipline, liturgy, and customs, then unity will never exist.
If unity means mutual love, expressions of brotherhood, and sense of being one great family, then unity already exists.
If unity means sharing one faith and praying with one voice to the one Father of us all, then unity already exists.
If unity means being united in common service to the Christian community and to the wider world of belief and unbelief outside it, then unity already exists.
If unity means persevering together in the quest for reconciliation, justice, peace, and solidarity, then unity already exists.
If unity means accepting that the Pope has a unique and special role at the service of the whole Church, then unity almost exists.
But if unity means agreeing on the practical, structural forms for the exercise of the Pope’s special role of primacy, then unity does not yet exist.
We’re long since past getting to know one another, meeting each other’s family, courtship, and even engagement. Oh, to set the time and place of the wedding soon!


(Published in
CNEWA World, 27:5, September 2001)