Jesus names Peter “the Rock,” the foundation of the Church, and gives him the keys to open and close (Mt 16:13-20). What was that supposed to mean? We have two clues. The first clue: elsewhere in the same gospel we have the only other reference to opening and closing: Jesus in a bit of a pique says, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.” (Mt 23:13) The second clue: the only time in Peter’s earthly ministry where he actually opened or closed anything of any significance was when he opened the doors of the Church to the Gentiles (Acts 10). This was a big deal to the early Church. And it was a big deal to Matthew’s community in particular. They wanted very much to keep their identity as a Jewish Christian community. And despite their natural disinclination to expand their mental and emotional boundaries (notice even Jesus’ temporary disinclination in Mt 15:26), they wanted to obey the divine invitation to include.
Since the “Rock” was put in place, the foundation was laid, where are the stories of inclusion? When faced with the question of whether to include whole groups of people, where did the Church choose again to do the heavy soul-searching, the difficult stretching of spirit, the onerous struggling with the difference between “the way we were raised” and “what God is calling us to now” in terms of including or excluding? Is this like one of those embarrassing housing developments where the foundation is laid but the house is never built on top of it because the developer didn’t have what it took? Peter did his part. When the Gentiles were knocking at the door, he knew what to do with the keys. He was a great foundation.
The sound at the door is from the raw knuckles of the excluded. Who will use the keys they have to open the doors of their assemblies to all who desire communion? You will? Oh, good; you Rock!
Frank Krebs, M.Div.
Pastor, The Community of Sts. Clare & Francis
A member of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion
All Are Welcome, Really
frank.krebs@stsclareandfrancis.org
http://www.stsclareandfrancis.org/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
With all due respect, that bit of biblical and ecclesiastical analysis is without foundation-- or, if you will, on a foundation of sand. Your "ecumenical community" is not built upon the Rock-- Peter-- and is washed away at the first tide.
Let the great "oppressed" embrace Christ and His Church, and there they will truly find inclusion. If they cling to error and cut themselves off from the vine as you have done, let them fill your pews.
Christian charity requires that I tell you, and the readers of this piece, the truth.
I will pray for you. It is not too late to return to the Church.
A Catholic
Frank,
You asked an interesting question when you wrote "...where did the Church choose again to do the heavy soul-searching...." and include outsiders.
A partial answer might lie in the decision to send missionaries to Asia, Africa, South America, Europe and let's not forget North America.
I suspect it took a lot of soul seaching among those French Jesuits to see the Iroquois as anything higher than animals.
I know you're looking for a different answer but sometimes it's helpful to see the one right in front of you.
Mike Gerard
Thanks, Mike. I was not focusing on the people who were “different” whom the Church chose to invite in. I agree that the Church has done an outstanding job of including people of virtually every culture. Great point.
I was focusing on the people, like the Gentiles, who could not be included according to the early church's understanding of the law. Inclusion happened when Peter realized God could speak to him in the present moment and that he had the keys to open the doors and over-rule a previous traditional stance (Acts 10).
That said, I really liked your comment. And, while the Church’s history of evangelization is a storied mixed bag, I too want to acknowledge and praise every missionary who overcame the temptation to see “the other” as a less-than-human animal.
Frank,
I'll make a parting comment and then sign off. You get the last word.
You wrote: "Inclusion happened when Peter realized God could speak to him in the present moment and that he had the keys to open the doors and over-rule a previous traditional stance (Acts 10)."
In saying this of course you place much, if not all, of the burden of changing "tradition" upon the Holy Father. Your remark would apply equally to the Doctrine of Papal Infalliblity. There too Peter, or the See of Peter had the grace to realize God could speak to him in the present moment and ......"
Good to hear you affirm the Doctrine of Infalliblity.
Spoken like an ultra-Montanist.
Don't think you meant to say that though (laugh).
I think you are probably speaking of gays as the new Gentiles. As an argument goes, fine enough. But do you really affirm the right of the Holy Father to decide that issue.
I do. Do you?
Respectfully,
Mike Gerard
Post a Comment