ART: Giotto crucifix restored

Giotto crucifix restored

Ognissanti cross to be returned to church November 6

14 October, 18:22

Guarda la foto1 di 1

(ANSA) - Florence, October 14 - A five-year restoration of a crucifix from the Florence church of Ognissanti (All Saints) is over and the newly acclaimed artefact will take its rightful place there as the work of Giotto, restorers said Thursday.

It was only during the painstaking restoration that the 14th-century work was definitively attributed to the pre-Renaissance master.

The large (467x360 cm) cross took so long to be renovated because it was in a "very poor state of repair," lead restorers Marco Ciatti and Cecilia Frosinini said, and the supporting structure had to be "thoroughly bolstered".

They pointed out that cutting-edge solvents were used to remove centuries of grime while "extremely delicate attention" was taken with the coloured glass in Christ's halo, which was "in very bad shape".

As well as enabling the attribution, the restoration work also "revealed a lot of new information about how the artist worked," they said.

In particular, they said, infrared reflectography examination allowed experts to discover preparatory drawings under the painting.

The crucifix will be unveiled in the Ognissanti church on November 6, although art fans will have a chance to get a sneak peek at it on October 18-22 at the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence's world-famous restoration workshop, where the work was done. As befitting its new status, the cross, which had been relegated to a little-visited sacristy, will be placed in a transept chapel and illuminated by a special new LED system.

"Hitherto, the work only attracted the attention of experts, but from now on it will inspire that of the international public," said the head of Florence's museums, Cristian Acidini.

The Ognissanti Crucifix was previously thought to have been by a relative or pupil of Giotto.

Dating to the second decade of the 1300s, Giotto would have painted it some 20 years after completing his famous monumental crucifix in Florence's Santa Maria Novella church.

Although renowned for his skill at life drawings at a time when stylised Byzantine art dominated, much of Giotto's life, travels and training remains shrouded in mystery.

He was born in Tuscany of a father named Bondone, studied with Cimabue, one of the greatest painters of his day, and completed his greatest masterpiece, the decoration of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, in around 1305.

However, the year and precise place of his birth and his family's background remain subjects of dispute, as does the order in which he completed his works and even their attribution.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Binh An trong Chua Giesu!" - Peace in Jesus!

Karl Rahner – The Trinity: Book Review

Major Book Review: Karl Rahner – The Trinity[1]

Submitted to Mabiala Kenzo, Ph.D. www.ambrose.edu

Rahner's Thesis

Rahner's thesis is that the Immanent Trinity is the Economic Trinity and vice versa (22), and that no adequate distinction can be made between the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Economy of Salvation (24).

Overview of Content

Rahner posits that Christians by the late 1960's were effectively monotheists without consciousness of the Trinitarian reality of God (10-11). At this time believers expressed interest in 'God incarnate' without an awareness of the "Word" who IS God incarnate. Such theological imprecision regarding the Trinity is viewed by Rahner to be a disservice to believers as it infers that there are no real distinctions to be had between the Three Persons (11). The fact that Trinitarian theology is so weak and imprecise indicates to Rahner that, in truth, Christians have a very poor idea of who God is and have lost a sense of God's connectedness to creation, unlike, for example, the medieval Franciscan theologian St. Bonaventure.

Rahner suggests that the Trinity was effectively forgotten due to its 'incomprehensibility', such that in contemporary times Christians have nothing to do with the Trinity except to 'know something about it'. He states plainly that if the believer cannot know the persons of the Trinity now, today, then the question becomes 'Can we know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity?' (14-15). Rahner then goes on to broach a number of theological problems that he perceives, for example:

- Aquinas sees God as the "essence" of the three persons rather than the unoriginate origin of divinity and reality.

- Rahner states that by the beginning of the 1970's there is no valid or serious consideration of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT (or other religious traditions) in terms of theological reflection being done by the Church.

It is Rahner's position that the mystery of the Trinity is the mystery of our salvation (22) and that the Immanent Trinity and Economic Trinity are one in the same. He states that Jesus 'as the Word incarnate' is uniquely God 'in this way' and the Father and Holy Spirit are 'not God in this way' (23), further positing that no adequate distinction can be made between the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of the economy of salvation. As regards reference to the Divine Persons we cannot claim to know fully what is the meaning of 'persons' or 'hypostases' in relation to understanding the Trinity (26), nevertheless Rahner holds that the Trinity fully communicates Godself to the world in light of the Economy of Salvation (27). It is the logos (λόγος) and no other of the Three Persons who reveals to us the triune God on account of the personal being which belongs exclusively to Jesus, the Father's logos (30).

Rahner uses the incarnation as an example of how the Immanent and Economic Trinity are One. He presents the idea that under contemporary circumstances theologians were not considering the Persons of the Trinity separately and states: "Suppose Jesus incarnate…- human as such - would not show us the logos as such", this hypothesis says that Jesus reveals essentially nothing of the reality of who He is in relation to the Father and Holy Spirit, rather He reveals only an 'image' of Himself that does not reveal His true self, or the heart / essence of who He is. Rahner posits that "what Jesus is and does as man reveals the logos as our salvation amidst us. Then we can assert, in the full meaning of the words: Here the logos with God, and the logos with us, the immanent and economic logos, are strictly the same (31-33)."

In Rahner's view, "each one of the three divine persons communicates himself to humanity in gratuitous grace in his own personal particularity and diversity. This Trinitarian communication is the ontological ground of man's life of grace and eventually of the direct vision of the divine persons in eternity (34-35)." Word and Spirit communicate to man who God is "as He is in Himself… the Economic self-communication of God is truly and really three-fold… it follows that this real mediation of a divine kind in the dimension of salvation history must also be a real mediation in God's inner life. The 'threefoldness' of God's relationship to us in Christ's order of grace is already the reality of God as it is in itself: a three-personal one (37-38)."

We do not fully understand the Trinity, which is described by Church councils as 'absolute mystery', although we do know the Trinity through revelation: "There are mysteries hidden in God which cannot be known unless revealed by God". That being said, the Church has historically left the " 'concept of mystery' undetermined… except that it is opposed to the rational-conceptual intelligibility of a statement or to everyday empirical knowledge"; therefore the Trinity is free to open new horizons of human knowledge, and "deepen the very concept of mystery [such that] God's very incomprehensibility might, as a positive predicate of our knowledge, be brought into inner proximity to the Trinity (50-51)", meaning the mystery itself deepens our true understanding of God as Trinity.[2]

As to the unity of the Three Persons, Rahner states that "on account of the unity of the essence the Son is from all eternity in the Father, the Father is from all eternity in the Son, and so on (79)." Further, when only one kind of activity is attributed to a particular Person of the Godhead such activity is nevertheless "implicitly attributed to both other persons, [keeping in mind that] each divine Person possesses its own proper relation to some created reality (76-77)."

Finally, as to God's revelation of Godself to humanity, Rahner suggests the following:

The differentiation of the self-communication of God in history (of truth) and spirit (of love) must belong to God "in himself," or otherwise this difference, which undoubtedly exists, would do away with God's self- communication. For these modalities and their differentiation either are in God himself (although we first experience them from our point of view), or they exist only in us, they belong only to the realm of creatures as effects of the divine creative activity. But then they are God's mediations in that difference which lies between creator and that which is created out of nothing. Then they can only be that communication of God which occurs precisely in creation, in which what is created contains a transcendental reference to the God who remains forever beyond this difference, thus at once 'giving' him and withdrawing him. Hence there occurs no self-communication, God himself is not there, he is only represented by the creature and its transcendental reference to God. Of course, the real self-communication of God too has its effect in the creature (the creaturely reality of Christ and 'created' grace); and the relation between self-communication as such (divine hypostasis as hypostatically united; uncreated grace) and the effect in the creatures may ontologically be explained as one prefers, according to the different theories with exist about this point in Christology and the doctrine of grace. But if there is to be a real self-communication and not mere creation, this creaturely reality is, at any rate, not mediating in the sense of some substitute, but as a consequence of the self-communication (and as a previous condition brought about by itself). God's self-communication, as concretely experienced by us, may always already imply this creaturely consequence and condition. But if this created reality were the real mediation of the self-communication by way of substitute, in the difference between creator and creature, there would no longer be any self-communication. God would be the 'giver', not the gift itself, he would 'give himself' only to the extent that he communicates a gift distinct from himself (99-101).

If I understand Rahner correctly (and I elaborate upon the point below), this is to say that if God as Immanent Trinity does not communicate the fullness of Godself to humanity in a way that we can fully encounter (as Economic Trinity) then we do not know God in Truth nor in Love. If God who is entirely unlimited in His capacity to communicate Himself to humanity chooses not to let us know who He really 'is' in his being / heart then, from a human vantage point one might reasonably conclude that this God does not really love us (98-99).[3] Rahner is simply restating what has been the saints' experience of God's immense and unlimited love for the last two millennia; As Vietnam's proto-martyr Andrew of Phu Yen so clearly stated before his execution at 20 years of age, "Let us return love for love to our God, let us return life for life."[4]

Critical Evaluation of the book (with particular attention to its relevance to the ongoing discussion on Trinitarian Theology)

The Trinity fully communicating Godself to the world (27) seems obvious today in light of Scripture. That being said, I am aware of the fact that it took the Church centuries to 'explain' how God as One could be communicating Godself to the world in three different though complementary ways, under three hypostases / in three 'Persons'. I am going to consider Rahner's thesis by looking first at the consequences of belief in an 'Immanent' concept of the Trinity as distinct from the 'Economic' concept of Trinity, and then at the ultimate out-flowing of life that comes from the consideration of the Trinity as at once "God within the eternal divine life [Immanent]… [and] God as disclosed in the economy of salvation [Economic]" (Grenz, 55)[i].

The Immanent Trinity – 'God within the eternal divine life'

The first question that arises from the long held theological assertion of the Western Church that God does not reveal the 'heart of Godself' to us, (which is what the doctrine of the Immanent Trinity infers to me), is "If God is love, and God loves us, why does God choose not to reveal the fullness of who He is to us whom He claims to love enough to die for?" Indeed, if we are siblings and children to the Jesus and the Father as Hebrews teaches, then surely God withholding Himself from us in any way indicates that God does not in fact love us completely or fully or totally, and that Jesus' death on the cross was not an act of self-sacrificial love as the Church has long taught, but rather Jesus' death was merely a means by which God could reassert His authority over humanity so that we could be enslaved to His will.[ii]

The Immanent Trinity; a God that cannot be known.[5] How do humans 'know' love? If humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, and we as human beings have limited ways of coming to the experience or knowledge of love, then a God who loves us must be willing to come to us in the unlimited fullness of His capacity to make us know His love. When we are deeply loved we know our lover in a way that demands the fullness of self-revelation. Certainly God is not limited in the ways by which He can make Himself fully known to those He loves. A God who cannot be fully known by the believer whom He has loved into being is no God at all. "In God we live and move and have our being", but we cannot know God in Godself? Is this possible? Can Love withhold Love's Self from His beloved?

Both Scripture and the apophatic tradition within Christianity testify to the fullness of God's self-giving both in Jesus' personal sacrifice and in how God communicates Himself intimately to believers today. A God who cannot be known in the depths of His being by those whom the Scriptures claim He loves - we whom He calls His Bride - is not a God but a caricature of the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Economic Trinity – 'God as disclosed in the economy of salvation'

God as we know the Trinity to be is accessible to us through our experience of the created order, Scripture states as much. I understand the historical position of theologians in expressing the point that creation is limited in the extent to which it can possibly reveal to humanity the 'full' nature of the Trinity, however, creation in and of itself has never had this function according to the Biblical witness so far as I am aware. Creation has clearly played a significant role in God's plan for revealing Himself to humanity.

What motivated the God whom we cannot really know in the depths of His being to reach out to us in love; the God who "so loved the world that He gave His only son that whoever would believe in Him would have eternal life"? Scripture says that it was love that motivated God to come to us and die in order to bring us home… but that's only the Economic Trinity talking… what motivated the Immanent Trinity to reach out to humanity? All we can know is 'a' face of God, an 'image'[iii] that He lets us see, He doesn't reveal His heart to us. How is this significantly different from an Islamic conception of God? Maybe we are loved by God and maybe we are not, we can never know the heart of God, or God's real motivations.

The Immanent Trinity is the Economic Trinity ~ The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity

If "God is Love" (1 Jn. 4:8) and our experience of 'love' reveals certain necessary qualities to the fullness of what love is, and if we assert that the communion of the Divine Persons is a communion of love, then I offer the hypothesis that – due to God's nature and Being as Divine Love and the very source of all Love, and in light of God's relationship to Israel and the Church as 'Divine Spouse' – God must certainly reveal the fullness of Godself to His people. Total self-revelation to the fullest extent possible, in the human experience, is what true love demands. If total self-revelation, indeed total self-sacrifice (death to self), were not a requirement of Love in its fullest expression then, quite likely, there would have been no need for God to come to humanity, a man amongst men, making himself lower than his very creatures through subjecting Himself to humiliation, condemnation, and bodily destruction at our very hands. If in seeing Jesus we have seen the Father (Jn. 14) and through Jesus' life, death, resurrection and his final sending of the Holy Spirit we have come to know the third person of the Trinity, then Rahner's postulation is correct that the Immanent and Economic Trinity are one in the same reality for believers.

The view held by some theologians that the Trinity did not reveal the heart or essence of their relationship to humanity is presumptuous in my view. Again, if God is Love, then in his infinite capacity to love and reveal Himself to us He would surely not intentionally withhold from us anything of who He truly is in the fullness of his Being. Surely the only limits to God's self-revelation that humanity will experience are those that we ourselves place upon God; meaning, God has allowed each one of us to freely choose Him, but He awaits our love, he awaits our welcoming Him into our lives so that He can freely give fully and completely of Himself to us. Mystical theology in the writings and experience of such persons as Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross and others testify to this. I suggest that God's free choice of the manner by which he reveals Himself to us individually, (and as His Body - the Church), are the only limitations we experience pertaining to God's revelation of Himself to his people.

(with particular attention to its relevance to the ongoing discussion on Trinitarian Theology)

The development of the doctrine of the Immanent Trinity seems to have grown out of a time in Western Church history when theologians were disconnected from their own humanity. Perhaps that was a consequence social hierarchies that perpetuated systemic injustice in the medieval Western world, or of Scholastic Theology (-ies) that developed out of monastic traditions that encouraged disconnection from family, society, and the creation? I know that Eastern theologians for a time regarded Western theology to be focused on reason and lacking prayer. Contemporary theologians in the West, like Rahner, have suggested that theology cannot be done without prayer. Praise be to God for that!

Rahner's contribution to the ongoing discussion of Trinitarian theology seems to be a much needed reaffirmation of the Incarnation, the humanity of Jesus, and the Trinitarian love that brought each one of us and all humanity to birth. In light of Rahner's Trinitarian theology I am better understanding the need for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II for example. The Tridentine (pre-1965) Mass, insofar as I perceive it from personal experience, is very much an affirmation of the unknowability of an Immanent Trinity. It discourages any sense of 'God with us' while stressing an experience of God us untouchable, unknowable, and unreachable. The new (novus ordo) Mass of the Latin Rite communicates God as 'with us' or even 'in us', thus an immanent God in the order of creation, a God accessible, reachable, indeed touchable in the Sacrament of the altar and in our fellow Christian.

Rahner's Trinitarian theology does not shy away from looking to both Protestant and Eastern Church thinkers. Is a renewal of Trinitarian theology also a door to Christian reconciliation? Is there the possibility of 'unity in diversity' across Christian Traditions? Catholicism in fact comprises 23 sui iuris[iv] Churches that are in full communion with one another, the Latin (Roman) Rite being the largest of the Catholic communities. Presently the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are in dialogue regarding the role of the papacy in Christian history and how formal ecclesial reconciliation will be able to be established in the future in light of the pope's role as it has been understood over two millennia. There are obstacles to unity in this area, but there is willingness to move ahead because there is now a perceived need. Can formal reconciliation be established between the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches / communities?

In light of God as Trinity, in light of the prayer of Jesus that His followers 'be one' as He is in the Father and the Father is in Him (Jn.17:21), and in facing the fact that Jesus is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit – a unity in diversity of expression – we MUST find a way to be reconciled as Catholics and Protestants because that is the will of Jesus written explicitly in Scripture! However, when I consider the fear, distrust, and at times obvious hatred that can be shared between Catholics and Protestants (not to mention Orthodox) I see we have a long road to travel.

The Triune God who is with us, whose will is known to us through having revealed His heart to us in both Word (Scripture) and action (the Crucifixion and Resurrection) is THE prototype of our Unity as the One Body of Christ. There already exists a unity of love amongst Christians of diverse Traditions, now our ecclesial communities need to establish full visible communion. Our present divisions, especially in the areas of orthodox Scriptural interpretation and Christian moral teaching are heart rending, and are profoundly damaging the fruitfulness of our witness – arguably at the cost of souls and lives – in a world that so deeply needs to know the Truth of God's Love and Redemption.

---

[1] Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Trans. Joseph Donceel. New York: Seabury Press, 1974.

[2] Mystery, or 'inexplicability', as an aspect of apophatic knowledge or experience of God is not problematic in light of the Christian experience of God in prayer, worship, and silence. That the Christian knows God in ways beyond explaining or defining is a normal aspect of the experience of believers throughout the history of the Church. This fact is well attested in the teaching of the Eastern Churches as well as, for example, the writings of such Western doctors of the Church as Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Ávila, and John of the Cross.

[3] Rahner, 98-99. "… The divine self-communication possesses two basic modalities; self-communication as truth and as love. This… statement implies that this self-communication, insofar as it occurs as 'truth', happens in history; and that insofar as it happens as love, it opens this history in transcendence towards the absolute future, [eternal life with God]. This is not evident at once. History as concrete, in which the irrevocability of the divine self-communication is made apparent, and transcendence towards the absolute future are opposites, and as such they keep the one divine self-communication separated in their modalities. But this historic manifestation as truth can be perceived only in the horizon of transcendence toward God's absolute future; this absolute future is irrevocably promised as love by the fact that this promise is established in concrete history (of the 'absolute bringer of salvation'). Insofar as these two statements are true, the two modalities of divine self-communication are not separated, nor are they tied together simply by divine decree. They constitute the one divine self-communication which assumes the form of truth in history, or origin and offer, of love in transcendence toward the freely accepted absolute future.

Suppose we wish to put these two basic modalities under one short formula… the divine self-communication occurs in unity and distinction in history (of the truth) and in the spirit (of love).

Both basic modalities condition one another. They derive from the nature of the self-communication of the unoriginate God who remains incomprehensible, whose self-communication remains a mystery both as possible and as actual. But the two modalities are not simply the same thing.

[4] Blessed Andrew of Phu Yen, 17^th century catechist, proto-martyr of Vietnam.

[5] Rahner, 103. An 'apologetics' of the 'immanent' Trinity should not start from the false assumption that a lifeless self-identity without any mediation is the most perfect way of being of the absolute existent. Afterwards it will then claim that in God the distinction is 'only' relative, and thus try to remove the difficulty brought about by an assumption which amounted to a false initial conception of God's 'simplicity'.

---

[i] Grenz, J. Stanley. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Fortress Press: Minneapolois, MN. 2004.

[ii] Jesus' death in such a case may merely have been God's means of reestablishing order in the spiritual and earthly realms while at the same time meeting the demands of His justice.

[iii] Not unlike the Eastern Christian theology of iconography:

The word "icon" (εικονα) etymologically derives from the verb "ico" (εικω) or "eica" (εοικα) which means "likeness" (or image), namely an imprint of the characteristics of the prototype. This means that an icon does not have its own hypostasis (being) but its value exists in the likeness with the prototype. "For what is imprinted is different from that which is being imprinted" says Saint John Damascene. The icon therefore is the perceptible means between the faithful and the prototype which is invisible to them. Great Basil refers to a distinction between a "natural" and "artificial" icon. Both types of icons have a common known, the likeness of the prototype that they depict. They differ though in this: The likeness of the natural icon to the prototype refers to the essence of the depicted prototype, maintaining the difference in its hypostasis. A characteristic example of a natural icon is the Son and Word of God in relation to God the Father. The Apostle Paul says that "Christ is the icon of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Namely, the Son is "the identical icon of the Being" as Saint John Damascene mentions, and referred to God the Father as being identical in essence. What makes the Son different to the Father is His hypostasis and specifically the characteristic of being born. On the other side, the artificial icon likens the depicted person in his appearance but differs as of his essence. Since the artificial icon refers only to the appearance of the one depicted, therefore what is depicted is not his nature but the hypostasis of the prototype as mentioned by Saint Theodore Studite: "What is depicted on an icon is not its nature but its hypostasis". This likeness between the icon and the one depicted constitutes the condition of existence of the artificial picture. That is why the Orthodox icons are not a product of the fantasy of every artist but the prototypes (the Lord, the Theotokos, the Saints) are historic personalities with their own individual characteristics. Clearly the Fathers of the 7^th Ecumenical Synod observe, "Having seen the Lord, as they saw, so they depicted Him, and having seen James, the brother of the Lord, as they saw him, so they depicted him". – "Theological approaches to the Hagiographic art" cited 12 Oct. 2010 from the website of the Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/751A636C.en.aspx

[iv] 'Sui iuris' Churches are those which have their own autonomy or self-jurisdiction in terms of tradition and organization while being in full communion with the Church of Rome and accepting papal authority in the areas of Church teaching on faith and morality.

CHURCH: Middle East Synod Reports

Reports from the Middle East Synod

Fr. Maximos from Holy Resurrection Monastery points to a great resource entitled 'Index of stories from Synod of Bishops on the Middle East,' which catalogues all the stories from the synod updated daily.
I would also like to point to Fr. Hunwicke's Liturgical Notes for an editorial on some of the demands made by synod representatives.

---

(HRM) - The best reporting I've seen on the current Synod of Bishops on the Middle East is, here. John Allen really does seem able to distill many of the most important issues. He made the point that this is the first time in modern times that a Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church comprises a majority of voting members from the Eastern Churches. I'll be throwing in my two cents over the next few days . . .

 

Eastern Catholics ask for greater recognition, respect

Eastern Catholics ask for greater recognition, respect

These are not new requests. There is a long and often contentious history here. Respect for Eastern Catholic patriarchs, for particular (those of the sui iuris Churches) canon laws, for the married priesthood, and for equal treatment in Latin-dominated countries are all issues brought up over and over again. In many cases the response from Rome is that allowing Eastern Catholics to act as they do "at home" would be a scandal (σκάνδαλον, stumbling block) to the Latin faithful. The intent is to avert difficulties, but the message received is that the Latin Church is superior and normative while the Eastern Churches are being given leave to do only those things Rome permits. This sort of behavior must stop if they hope (as Rome has said) to show the Orthodox Church how union might look in a post-schism Church. Things like 'Ea Semper' and 'Cum Data Fuerit' still hold sway.

---

VATICAN CITY (CNEWA/CNS) - The vast majority of Catholics in the Middle East belong to Eastern Catholic churches, and their bishops spoke loudly at the Vatican, asking for greater respect and a higher profile for Eastern Catholics.

Reflecting the Catholic population of the region, 140 of the 185 voting members of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East come from the Eastern Catholic churches, and several of them addressed the synod Oct. 12.

Not only did they ask for recognition of their rights, they also emphasized the work they need to do to strengthen the Christian identity of their faithful, preserve their heritage and end a sense of rivalry that can exist among Catholics of different rites.

Bishop Vartan Waldir Boghossian, the Argentina-based bishop for Armenian Catholics in Latin America, used rather strong language to get across points made by other Eastern Catholic bishops, particularly regarding limits placed on Catholic patriarchs when providing for their faithful who have emigrated from their traditional homelands.

The Eastern Catholic churches, while in full communion with the pope, have their own canon law and disciplines, their own liturgies, spiritualities, histories and heritage. While they tend to be identified with one country or geographical region, many of them now find that the majority of their faithful live abroad, Bishop Boghossian said.

And, he said, "of the 23 churches in their own right that make up the Catholic Church, only one - the Latin church - is not subject to this limitation" of the authority and power of the patriarch and synod being confined to the churches' ancient geographical borders.

For example, while the bishops of the Armenian Catholic Church elect bishops for dioceses in Armenia, it is the pope who selects Armenian bishops for dioceses in the United States or Australia.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches described the patriarchs as "fathers and leaders of their churches," Bishop Boghossian said. "This paternity and jurisdiction must not be limited to a territory," especially when the majority of the church's members live outside that territory.

In addition, he said, the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches, "because of their identity as fathers and leaders of the 'sui iuris' (self-governing) churches that make up the catholicism of the Catholic Church, ipso facto should be members of the college that elects the pontiff without the need for the Latin title of cardinal. For the same reason, they should also take precedence over them," he said.

Currently, three of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs are cardinals; in the Vatican's list of precedence, they come after the handful of cardinal-bishops and before the cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons.

Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt, said that especially when there are more faithful of an Eastern church living outside than inside the church's territory, "it is not entirely logical that some faithful who belong to a 'sui iuris' church have no relationship with the church they belong to, other than liturgically."

"My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be," he said. This would be a huge change.

The Coptic bishop also asked Pope Benedict XVI to revoke a decision made in the 1930s that Eastern churches can ordain married men only in their traditional homelands. This would be even more monumental.

Msgr. Robert L. Stern, general secretary of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, told the synod that by emphasizing the geographical limitation of an Eastern Catholic patriarch's authority, the church was, in effect, working counter to a vision of the church as a network where unity does not mean uniformity and where communion grows through communication and sharing.

"In the model of network, many churches in the same territory is normal, and rivalries and attempts to proselytize or dominate are inappropriate," he said.

Latin-rite Archbishop Jean Sleiman of Baghdad, Iraq, told the synod that for the survival of the Catholic Church in the Middle East, "a rigid or exaggerated" emphasis on belonging to one ritual church family must give way to cooperation and coordination of pastoral activities.

"Communion is especially contradicted by confessionalism. Rites are transformed into confessions," he said.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Binh An trong Chua Giesu!" - Peace in Jesus!

"Ubicumque et Semper"

Church's Duty Extends to "Everywhere and Always"

Pope Officially Decrees New Evangelization Council

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 12, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is re-affirming a timeless truth: "The Church has the duty to proclaim always and everywhere the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

With this declaration, the Pope has officially created the newest dicastery of the Roman Curia, the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. "Ubicumque et Semper" (Everywhere and Always) was promulgated "motu proprio" and released today. The Sept. 21 document officially decrees the existence of the council, which the Holy Father had already announced June 28.

Citing Christ's command to his apostles and the Holy Spirit's action in the Church, the Pontiff affirmed that the "evangelizing mission, continuation of the work desired by the Lord Jesus, is for the Church necessary and irreplaceable, expression of her very nature."

The pontifical council is thus designed "to offer adequate answers so that the whole Church, allowing herself to be regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, present[s] herself to the contemporary world with a missionary thrust capable of promoting a new evangelization," the document states.

This will not imply a single formula to be applied across the board, Benedict XVI clarified.

"The diversity of situations calls for careful discernment," he said. "[...] And yet, it is not difficult to realize what all the Churches need that live in traditionally Christian territories, which is a renewed missionary drive, expression of a new generous openness to the gift of grace. In fact, we cannot forget that the first task is to be docile to the gratuitous work of the Spirit of the Risen One, which supports all those who are bearers of the Gospel, and which opens the hearts of those who listen. Necessary above all to proclaim profoundly the Word of the Gospel is a profound experience of God."

5 tasks

The document goes on to delineate four articles, including one that lists five particular tasks:

-- to reflect on the theological and pastoral meaning of the new evangelization;

-- to promote and foster the study, diffusion and realization of the papal magisterium related to topics connected with the new evangelization;

-- to make known initiatives linked to the new evangelization already under way, availing of resources in consecrated and apostolic life and new ecclesial communities;

-- to study and foster the use of modern forms of communication, as instruments for the new evangelization;

-- to promote the use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as essential and complete formulation of the content of the faith for the men of our time.

The Pope reflected: "As I stated in my first encyclical 'Deus Caritas Est': 'Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

"In a similar way, at the root of all evangelization there is not a human plan of expansion, but the desire to share the inestimable gift that God has willed to give us, making us sharers in his own life."

--- --- ---

On ZENIT's Web page:

Full text: www.zenit.org/article-30619?l=english

The khachkars of the Armenian Church

The khachkars of the Armenian Church

(Wikipedia) - A khachkar or khatchkar (Armenian: խաչքար, meaning cross-stone) is a cross-bearing carved memorial stele covered with rosettes and botanical motifs, characteristic of Armenian art and found in Armenia. The most common feature is a cross, rarely with a crucifix, with a rosette or sun disc below it. The remainder is usually filled with patterns of leaves, grapes or abstract knotwork patterns. Occasionally it is surmounted by a cornice with biblical or saints' characters.

The most common reason for erecting a khachkar was for votive reasons - for the salvation of the soul of either a living or a deceased person. They were also erected for other reasons, such as to commemorate a military victory, construction of a church, or as a form of protection from natural disasters.

The most common location for a khachkar is in a graveyard. However Armenian gravestones take many other forms, and only a minority are khatchkars.

'Flame of Divine Love' - St. Columbanus

From the Instructions of St Columbanus (Irish, 6th - 7th century)

Perpetual light in the temple of the eternal High Priest

How blessed, how fortunate, are those servants whom the Lord will find watchful when he comes. Blessed is the time of waiting when we stay awake for the Lord, the Creator of the universe, who fills all things and transcends all things.
 
How I wish he would awaken me, his humble servant, from the sleep of slothfulness, even though I am of little worth. How I wish he would enkindle me with that fire of divine love. The flames of his love burn beyond the stars; the longing for his overwhelming delights and the divine fire ever burn within me!
 
How I wish I might deserve to have my lantern always burning at night in the temple of my Lord, to give light to all who enter the house of my God. Give me, I pray you, Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ, your Son and my God, that love that does not fail so that my lantern, burning within me and giving light to others, may be always lighted and never extinguished.
Jesus, our most loving Savior, be pleased to light our lanterns, so that they may burn for ever in your temple, receiving eternal light from you, the eternal light, to lighten our darkness and to ward off from us the darkness of the world.
 
Give your light to my lantern, I beg you, my Jesus, so that by its light I may see that holy of holies which receives you as the eternal priest entering among the columns of your great temple. May I ever see you only, look on you, long for you; may I gaze with love on you alone, and have my lantern shining and burning always in your presence.
 
Loving Savior, be pleased to show yourself to us who knock, so that in knowing you we may love only you, love you alone, desire you alone, contemplate only you day and night, and always think of you. Inspire in us the depth of love that is fitting for you to receive as God. So may your love pervade our whole being, possess us completely, and fill all our senses, that we may know no other love but love for you who are everlasting. May our love be so great that the many waters of sky, land and sea cannot extinguish it in us: many waters could not extinguish love.
 
May this saying be fulfilled in us also, at least in part, by your gift, Jesus Christ, our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 

St. Columbanus. Fresco in the abbey of Brugnato.

MYANMAR: Building Up the Church

Building Up the Church in Myanmar

Interview With Sister Veronica Nwe Ni Moe

ROME, OCT. 11, 2010 (Zenit.org).- It's been three years since Myanmar made daily headlines with the ruling junta's violent repression of pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks.

Now the nation is preparing for rare national elections next month, though the international community is hardly expecting a crowning moment of democracy.

It is in such a context that Sister Veronica Nwe Ni Moe and her Salesian sisters are building up the Church, one child at a time.

In this interview given to the television program "Where God Weeps" of the Catholic Radio and Television Network (CRTN) in cooperation with Aid to the Church in Need, Sister Veronica speaks of the work of the Salesians in Myanmar, as well as her own efforts to further her education in Rome.

Q: Sister you are working a lot with young people. You are studying in Rome and your focus is education. What are the challenges facing the young people in Myanmar?

Sister Veronica: I'm a Salesian sister. We see many young girls coming to us. We have a training center for young girls from ages 15 to 25 who come from the various parishes. They are usually from the various ethnic groups. They have no future and no guidance.

Q: The center of the country is much more Buddhist. The border regions are much more Catholic. How is it that your family is Catholic in a more Buddhist region?

Sister Veronica: This is my opinion. My mom is from the Karen tribe from the border regions and in Myanmar, "the tribals" as we are called are predominantly Catholics.

Q: Maybe you could explain the situations in the border regions?

Sister Veronica: We do not know the real motive of the government in waging war against the tribes. What I could say is that the innocent people, particularly the young who are caught in the crossfire, are suffering. They are forced to carry food and weapons and are constantly on the move. There is no stability and education is non-existent, or is not a priority.

Most of the girls are also exploited or abused by different people especially in the border regions. So there is no future for these young girls, and also boys, despite their varied talents. The girls who come to us -- we teach them and they are able to use their creativity. When I became a sister I stayed with the girls for three years. While staying with them I realized that I too learned so many things from them.

Q: For example?

Sister Veronica: To be simple. To be content with what you have. Happiness does not lie in material things that you possess but rather with life lived. A life of commitment and honesty, which gives them this joy.

Q: It must be painful for you to witness this suffering of the young people?

Sister Veronica: Sure. I suffer. We are educators and our congregation worldwide is able to own their own schools, youth centers, oratories and we are free -- but not in Myanmar. What I do is, first of all, pray for them and then I commit myself wholeheartedly to them by educating them and teaching them to be good Christian mothers so that they can transmit their faith to their children.

Q: Is it possible to open schools, even small village schools in these areas?

Sister Veronica: We have a kindergarten with 100 children and most of them are Buddhist. Working with the Buddhists is not difficult because they are very peaceful and they [the parents] appreciate our work. It is easy to work in collaboration with the parents.

Q: But you have only opened one kindergarten so far. What is preventing you from doing more? Is it the war?

Sister Veronica: First of all, it's the number of Salesian sisters in Burma. There are only 21 of us at the moment and still growing. We now have 16 to 17 aspirants, eight postulants and nine novices; we are growing. This number hinders us also because we want to give 100% of ourselves. And to do it well! We have four houses in Myanmar and the 21 sisters are distributed among these houses.

Q: What is the day to day relationship between the Catholics and Buddhists?

Sister Veronica: It is very peaceful. For example, in the village where I was born, of the 800 families, eight are Catholics and they're all my relatives. So all my friends are mostly Buddhist. We live peacefully and this is the norm. The Buddhist monks are kind and compassionate.

Q: Sister, there are, as part of evangelization in the Church, young people called "Zetemans." Can you tell us about the "Zeteman" and what they do?

Sister Veronica: They are young Catholic missionaries, aged 18 and above; so they are very young. They dedicate their lives and give their services to their dioceses for three years. They go to the remote places -- mountains, forests within their dioceses -- to serve. Their main goal is to serve and do charitable work in education, health care, for the elderly. They do not catechize but if the people ask about Jesus and the faith then they share their faith. They do this service and sometimes risk their own lives; they often succumb to sickness, often times from their travels through the jungles. It is a very important service they provide because, often times, the religious and priests cannot visit these places.

Q: How long are they [young people] gone and how long does it take them to reach a village in the mountains?

Sister Veronica: Two of our Salesian sisters did that service before becoming sisters; so their Salesian vocation was born from this "Zeteman" service. And what I know is that they travel to distant places, for example, even traveling by car, it would take them three days to reach their destination, often visiting very poor villages and often times without food. They often live with the villagers.

Q: Sister, can you tell us a little bit about your vocation?

Sister Veronica: When I was young I never thought about becoming a sister. My ambition was to become a doctor to care for the sick. I did try to study very hard because in my country to be a doctor requires hard work. In my 10th year I also wanted to study computers and English. My father, at this time in the year 1997-1998, became acquainted with the Salesian missionary sisters. He met two Salesian sisters and was struck by their joy and welcoming attitude. He asked me, after coming back home from the city, if I would like to study under them. I said yes and he accompanied me there.

During my stay with them, I started to ask myself and witnessed their joy despite the difficulties. I was 17-18 years old at this time and searching for the real happiness in life. I often questioned why they were always happy while I was not always and afterward, I realized that their true happiness was in loving God and serving one's neighbors. This I now know. To search for real happiness was what made me follow the Salesian way; to be joyful in serving and helping to educate these young people.

Q: Sister, you are here studying in Rome. What brought you here?

Sister Veronica: Firstly it was out of obedience to my superior. I was asked to study and to prepare for my future mission. The other thing is that my superior informed me that she received a scholarship from Aid to the Church in Need. ACN provided a scholarship for five years. I have been very grateful to ACN. I've also prayed for all those who have supported me in my studies, my formation, and I always remind myself, and I'm very convinced, that if I do not know anything I cannot share anything. I can only share what I know and what I've learned. The most important thing I can share when I go back is the love of God. This is more precious than anything else and we are in much need of it.

Q: And now you feel as if your fruits are being used: your education, your languages, you're now here in Rome, you're completing your studies in education and you'll be going back soon to Myanmar, yes? Sister, what is your hope for the Church in Myanmar?

Sister Veronica: I'm very hopeful. I see a very good future for the Catholic Church in Burma. First of all there is an increase in the number of young people who are very generous of themselves. The other fact is the Catholic Church is well known for her charity, and very close to the poor. We want to continue on this strength and mandate -- joy, poverty and service to the poor. I also believe in God's grace. God is working in and through us and with our dedication to the faithful. We will grow.

* * *

This interview was conducted for "Where God Weeps," a weekly television and radio show produced by Catholic Radio and Television Network in conjunction with the international Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

For more information: www.WhereGodWeeps.org

“My life,” Rahner responded, “was characterized by a monotony..."

On his 75th birthday, Rahner was asked to recount the major turning points of his life. "My life," he responded, "was characterized rather by a certain monotony, a regularity, a homogeneity that comes from a person's turning toward the final theme of theology, of religious life, and also of human life in general—which comes from the one, silent, absolute but always present reality of God."

 

Eastern Christian theology of iconography

Eastern Christian theology of iconography:

The word "icon" (εικονα) etymologically derives from the verb "ico" (εικω) or "eica" (εοικα) which means "likeness" (or image), namely an imprint of the characteristics of the prototype. This means that an icon does not have its own hypostasis (being) but its value exists in the likeness with the prototype. "For what is imprinted is different from that which is being imprinted" says Saint John Damascene. The icon therefore is the perceptible means between the faithful and the prototype which is invisible to them. Great Basil refers to a distinction between a "natural" and "artificial" icon. Both types of icons have a common known, the likeness of the prototype that they depict. They differ though in this: The likeness of the natural icon to the prototype refers to the essence of the depicted prototype, maintaining the difference in its hypostasis. A characteristic example of a natural icon is the Son and Word of God in relation to God the Father. The Apostle Paul says that "Christ is the icon of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Namely, the Son is "the identical icon of the Being" as Saint John Damascene mentions, and referred to God the Father as being identical in essence. What makes the Son different to the Father is His hypostasis and specifically the characteristic of being born. On the other side, the artificial icon likens the depicted person in his appearance but differs as of his essence. Since the  artificial icon refers only to the appearance of the one depicted, therefore what is depicted is not his nature but the hypostasis of the prototype as mentioned by Saint Theodore Studite: "What is depicted on an icon is not its nature but its hypostasis". This likeness between the icon and the one depicted constitutes the condition of existence of the artificial picture. That is why the Orthodox icons are not a product of the fantasy of every artist but the prototypes (the Lord, the Theotokos, the Saints) are historic  personalities with their own individual characteristics. Clearly the Fathers of the 7^th Ecumenical Synod observe, "Having seen the Lord, as they saw, so they depicted Him, and having seen James, the brother of the Lord, as they saw him, so they depicted him".

 

 - from "Theological approaches to the Hagiographic art" cited 12 Oct. 2010  from the website of the Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/751A636C.en.aspx