Thought Leader » Grant Walliser » Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo…

http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziArticle/0,,2-13-1443_2322090,00.html

As for your analogy about hiking in the mountains, thats the best illustration of academic endaevour I’ve ever heard. Nice one.

the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches draw certain consequences from the statement of the creed that the church is a product of the Holy Spirit and, for all its inmperfections inspired by it. They are also mindful of the fact that it was the early church, which decided, which of the large number of gosples and apostolic letters that existed were to be included in that volume which became known and officially endorsed as the “New Testament”: thus the Church precedes the Bible as to the New Testament. therefore the doctrine of faith too is open to development. Accordingly both churches have developed a set procedure: only what is accepted by the general community of believers, the lay people and the clergy, can become new doctrine. The pope or patriarch and the bishops and synod can only proclaim to be doctrine or element of faiith if this has undergone a broad process of debate and acceptance. This is what happens even in our times.
Protestants are at a structural deficit: any innovations must be presented as already existing in Holy Scripture. So in principle innovations or new developments are rejected or left to be practised without special endorsement.

As to getting lost in high theology: it is like hiking in the mountains: there is a chance of getting lost but it is fascinating too, especially if you come across mountain pools you did not expect or some high valley you were not aware of.

Ullrich

Talk about getting lost in high theology!

I will readily agree.
To pick up your observations on “Renaissance”: if we look closely at it, it did not involve a “return to one’s own roots” as it may be understood. Let’s remembered what actually happened in Italian Renaissance: The Italian principalities, resentful of a millenium of Germanic domination – quite a long colonial period actually – sought liberation and a return to their own former glory of the Roman empire.
Since Latin culture however had become the intellectual property of France and Germany with their emergent universities, an alternative was needed for cultural identification. Fortunately for the Italians the Byzantine empire was just about dying at the hands of the Turks and as a result of own faults (including the harsh apartheid which the Greeks practised towards their oriental fellow citizens in Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor – and still practise today in Greek orthodox church circles). So an exodus of talented Greeks, of scholars, medics, and artisans began, of people who were just too happy to get a “green card” from the Italian principalities. The Italians, mindfull that Rome’s culture had always been centered in Greece, were all too happy to receive them.
So “renaissance” actually involved a process by which the Italians and then other Europeans studied an “alien” culture: that of Greece, maybe more thoroughly than the ancient Romans ever had done.

So the paradigm of “renaissance” does not mean a return to one’s own cultural roots, but growth by assimilation of other, superior cultures. A “renaissance” as an invigoration, to rise again may be a result, but it is no restoration at all.

What Mbeki may have had in mind was more likely a “National Romanticism” a developed from the 1800′s onwards, well into the early 20th century, when Scandinavians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles, Germans and Russians became interested what the culture of their tribal ancestors was, and how distinct national traits and traditions could be preserved or revived.
But none of those sober in their minds would have chosen to return to forms of social organisation and rulership of those days.

So what could that spell for SA ? Where could “African renaissance” draw its inspiration from ? – or is it actually about some “National Romanticism” in the lines of Credo Mutwa, for example ?

Now it is about time to thank Grant for his generosity with this forum.
I feel he has taken “Oom Frikkie’s” kind words to his heart.

Thanks Grant !

Now I may have to justify, why I, as a protestant, have been defending the Church of Rome so staunchly. It is simply the recognition that, in spite of all of its frequently harsh and authoritarian practise, the Roman Catholic church has a degree of tolerance and inclusiveness of theological approach, even verging on pantheism, which is unsurpassed by any oter denomination , even my own.
It is for this reason that it was Jesuite missionaries and scholars, who brought Zen Buddhism to the West,which would have been utterly immpossible to any protestant minister.
For all of the protestants’ merits in social respects, like the determined fight against slavery – just remember that staunch evangelical Wiliam Wilberforce – for all these merits, the protestant theological horizon is far narrower than the Catholic.
And isn’t ironic that in the middle of the 20th century the present pope, then still Professor Ratzinger in Regensburg, had been officially criticised by the then papal authorities, as an “unreliable theologian”, together with two other reknowned Catholic theologians. Somehow Ratzinger survived that and made it to become pope.
His broadmindedness reappears every now and then, like with his initiative of creating a standing committe of official exchange with Islamic theologians of authority. If that works out it might save many a soldier’s life in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the region.
There is no similar protestant initiative, because protestants are barred dogmatically from acknowledging that there is a large common basis of faith and cognition of God, which the Catholics with their idea of degrees of convergence can. So that is why the present and the former pope could pray in mosques, which a protestant is not supposed to do.
And perhaps there is such “inclusivism” also to be found on the Muslim side, apart from the terrible aggressive fundamentalisms raging from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan: Some weeks ago I could observe, on a visit in Syria, that Muslim women (and their families) were also praying at shrines to Mary, Mother of God, or to St. Tekla, in Christian Orthodox and Catholic churches, alongside with the Christians. It was relieving and encouraging to see this happen.

So after all religions could actually bring people of different faiths together too.
Seeing that the present Pope Benedict- for all his faults and authoritarianisms – is engaged in this direction on a solid basis of theology, is one reason for me to defend his church.

Maybe this explains something.

regards,

Ullrich

All interesting points, not widely shared or even perhaps welcome here yet, maybe.

It seems to me settlement in S. America, especially perhaps in Brazil, inclined from the beginning more towards ‘melding’ than ‘apartheid’, the form it took in southern Africa. Part of it seems to be traceable to the ecumenical/’New Testament’ tendency of the ‘Roman’ settlement in S. Am. compared to the Protestant/’Old Testament’ settlement here. Nineteenth century scientism, with its hierarchy of ‘races’, and the rise of nationalism and urbanisation, would then have found fertile soil in which to grow the differences.

It is often overlooked here that Europeans way back learned to borrow from each other – and from anyone else, past or present, who had a good idea.

When Thabo Mbeki mooted the idea of an ‘African Renaissance’ at the beginning of his presidency, I remember an encouraging article from Pallo Jordan, arts & culture minister now, saying this meant seizing on all usable ideas from whatever source. I doubt if it went down well in the ANC, and you certainly hear nothing along those lines right now.

Trouble also was that Mbeki never defined what a ‘Renaissance’ meant in African terms – which left it open to a cynical French wit recently to comment in a letter to a newspaper here that now the Renaissance has been and gone, perhaps it is time for a Reformation.

Best wishes.

Hello Paul,
Having popped in just now to see how the debate went on, I came accross your lines.

Thanks for the appreciation !

It seems some editors of M&G seem to have read this blog too, because a whole series of articles followed over these days which picked up the cues: like a brief message about a black African Krishnaite saddhu and others too on aspects of post-modern spiritual developments.

Even Grant’s reflections on the theme of “bodily resurrection” from an atheist perspective on Easter may be counted here.
As to Grant he picked up the cue of ministering to the atheists with his “sermon” on bodily resurrection in the form of molecules rearranging themselves differently after our deaths. He could find himself in good company with Buddhists in that view, who might add some extras of theirs.

Living here in Germany for a long time I could again experience the intellectual flexibility and openness to new developments also characteristic of South Africa, besides that cultural conservatism, when I did some courses at UNISA. There may be some advantages of being “at the fringes”.

As to immersing oneself in the culture of the people around oneself, from a white perspective: maybe this will become stronger, once the issues relating to the distribution of wealth and social opportunities after apartheid are no longer dominant and people meet not only about issues of social assets.

Indeed the relative marginality of being a white person in SA could become a cultural and spiritual asset. (This is not meant to be condescending, but rather with some sense of envy, as writing from a very homogeneous culture here.)

Actually all emigrant cultures seem to be conservative. Germans in Brazil or Russia have preserved many ways which have been lost in Germany itself – and just think of the Amish in the USA.

What fascinates me about developments in Brasil is how Brasilians are consciously tracing their cultural roots to al three races: American Indian, White and Black. All of these influnces merge in their culture which is so rich, not only in music but also in spiritual movements: within the church, in Pentecostal and Catholic spiritual perceptions and liturgical expression, but also outside of it, in Umbanda which synthesises Yoruba and Bantu traditions with European spiritualist thought and some Indian views. Interestngly the Roman Cathlic church there is quite tolerant of Umbanda, regarding it as some kind of inferior sister religion, whereas the Pentecostals fight against it fiercely as being of the devil. (Which does not prevent them from adopting many elements of Umband ritual into their own services.)If it were not for the language barrier South Africans might relate more strongly to Brasil, but perhaps it is a bit too “Roman” (Catholic and Portuguese) for SA tastes.

However there are interesting things happening in SA too as to religious developments: The “Zionists” have preserved much of African Traditional Religion in cosmology, spiritual practise and liturgy. It is also reported that its founder, Isaiah Shembe, had also adopted significant ideas from Hinduism in Natal. These “alien” heritages have caused serious concerns about Zionism to be “syncretistic” -which could actually be a badge of honour, since Christianity in its vital and radiant stages has been very syncretistic, assimilating much religious thought and practise from heathens and pagans around and growing by it.

So with Zionism there is something “new and exciting” developing out of the encounter of the different peoples and religions in South Africa. But as we know Zionism has not exactly spread much beyond the black population.

Maybe time to take a closer look at these movements, than to indulge in the sectarian battles of atheists fighting a gainst the respiritualisation of culture as “Mother Hubbard”, very thoughtfully, and “thank the Goddess”, with freakish sarcasm, have likewise suggested.

regards,

Ullrich

But then again some of the most religious nations also have notorious arms industries. Moot point.