Traditional Catholicism - Indigenous Friendly?

[Tsuwano]

The majority of “Catholics” don’t believe in the Real Presence and disregard the evils of contraception and abortifacients. They don’t see anything wrong with women “priests” and homosexual “marriages”.

Is Holy Mother Church to “adapt” to these people?

Such an opinion, that the Church is to adapt to us and not we to her, is dangerous. Not to mention the height of pride and arrogance.

“The majority of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and disregard the evils of contraception and abortifacients.” Documentation, please. This is mere opinion and about as useful as saying “The majority of Catholics believe in UFO’s and leprechauns.” It may or may not be true, but there is simply no way of proving it one way or another. It’s not helpful.
“Is Holy Mother Church to adapt to these people?” If by “these people” you mean the variety of cultures which make up the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, then, why yes, the Church does adapt to these people and has been doing so since the Council of Jerusalem when the Church decided that gentiles need not be circumcized in order to believe in Jesus and his mission. The Church does not alter the message which Jesus has commissioned her to preach to the world, but the Church freely utilized a variety of methods to preach that message. This includes adapting the liturgy, in part, to the cultures in which the faith has found a home. It is not dangerous to do so, and in fact, it is due to such adaptation that the faith has found a home in cultures across the world far from its center in Rome. The Church is not a universal Church for nothing. It may be pride and arrogance for a particular culture to demand that the Church adapt to that culture, but the Church has always gone forth believing that culture, in all its variety, is a gift from God and enhances the Church’s understanding of herself. For the Church not to reach out and attempt to incarnate itself within culture, or to seek the Christ as he is already present within culture, would be hypocrisy. It would be saying that Christ cannot be found in culture unless we bring him. The mission of the Church is to enable cultures to discover the Christ as he is already present to them and to join the universal Church in expressing that faith as one people of God.

 

[Filii_Dei]

It is one thing to translate the missal into a vernacular, it’s another to change the teachings of scripture and tradition to fit whatever a certain culture believes.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

When you say “pottery is not acceptable” what do you base this on? I agree that any chalice holdiing the body or blood of Christ needs to have a capacity not to break or leak the blood of Chriist as we would need to make reparation for abuse of the eucharist. so I don’t disagree…however, your thinking is coming across to me a bit strict (too black and white) and a bit medieval … and it is exactly that kind of thinking that creates a sadness in my heart around the openess of Catholics towards inculturation…we also need to find materials and symbols that meet those tests that you are talking about…so elaboration would be helpful to me.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

3. Sacred Vessels

[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books. The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. **Reprobated**, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.

The Mass is pretty black and white…well actually black and red.

 

[Rich_C]

When you say “pottery is not acceptable” what do you base this on? I agree that any chalice holdiing the body or blood of Christ needs to have a capacity not to break or leak the blood of Chriist as we would need to make reparation for abuse of the eucharist. so I don’t disagree…however, your thinking is coming across to me a bit strict (too black and white) and a bit medieval … and it is exactly that kind of thinking that creates a sadness in my heart around the openess of Catholics towards inculturation…we also need to find materials and symbols that meet those tests that you are talking about…so elaboration would be helpful to me.

Bruce,

 

[Warrenton]

First off, I understand your mourning the loss of your indigenous culture, and that is a painful thing to experience. Having to adapt to an inimical culture leaves one in a permanently uncomfortable circumstance.

Here’s the thing: all men must make a basic decision about the world they live in: are facts empirical, or are they subjective? If the former, then we must face them, uncomfortable or painful as they may be. If the latter, we can create a fantasy world to live in and ignore them insofar as our imagination supports our inner world.

I don not know how you answer this question, but it is basic to the topic your propose discussing.

Either the gospel and the Church are true, and native Canadians are better off for learning about them, or they are false.

If they are false, then native Canadians still need to determine whether they are better off with civilization or without it.

If native Canadians are better off with the Church because it is true, and if they are better off with civilization because it makes life easier and longer, then they must determine in what ways their present condition can be improved. Can improvements be made by incorporating elements of the old lifestyle into civilization, and if so, which elements?

I would add that these questions have nothing whatsoever directly to do with obtaining economic or political concessions from Canada. British Canada, like most of the wester, is afflicted with the modern problem of taking foolish things seriously and important things as a joke. The world, however, soon parts fools with their possessions and their influence - just because someone in Ottowa claims to take a position seriously should not be a reason to believe what the politician does.

These questions must be answered for the sake of native people’s sanity, or all they will remain permanent supplicants, never assimilating and never independent.

Then we can proceed to discuss how traditionalism can, and should, relate to native Canadian evangelization.

 

[Tsuwano]

trickster;8707698:

First off, I understand your mourning the loss of your indigenous culture, and that is a painful thing to experience. Having to adapt to an inimical culture leaves one in a permanently uncomfortable circumstance.

Here’s the thing: all men must make a basic decision about the world they live in: are facts empirical, or are they subjective? If the former, then we must face them, uncomfortable or painful as they may be. If the latter, we can create a fantasy world to live in and ignore them insofar as our imagination supports our inner world.

I don not know how you answer this question, but it is basic to the topic your propose discussing.

Either the gospel and the Church are true, and native Canadians are better off for learning about them, or they are false.

If they are false, then native Canadians still need to determine whether they are better off with civilization or without it.

If native Canadians are better off with the Church because it is true, and if they are better off with civilization because it makes life easier and longer, then they must determine in what ways their present condition can be improved. Can improvements be made by incorporating elements of the old lifestyle into civilization, and if so, which elements?

I would add that these questions have nothing whatsoever directly to do with obtaining economic or political concessions from Canada. British Canada, like most of the wester, is afflicted with the modern problem of taking foolish things seriously and important things as a joke. The world, however, soon parts fools with their possessions and their influence - just because someone in Ottowa claims to take a position seriously should not be a reason to believe what the politician does.

These questions must be answered for the sake of native people’s sanity, or all they will remain permanent supplicants, never assimilating and never independent.

Then we can proceed to discuss how traditionalism can, and should, relate to native Canadian evangelization.

I certainly agree with you when you claim that the Gospel is true and we must adapt ourselves to it, but I’m not sure what you mean when you say the Church is true. In the fact that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and serves as his presence in the world until he comes again, then yes, I definitely agree that the Church is true. But if you mean that the Church is true because Latin is used within her liturgies or that some European cultural patterns are present within her, then I would say you should rethink your definition of truth. These cultural distinctions are not what make the Church true. I believe that all people should be a part of the Universal Church, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that all cultural patterns within the Church must be European. Native Americans are just as free to express the Gospel and the Church in Native American cultural patterns, though they must remain faithful to the expression of community and Church as portrayed in the Gospels, the experience of Jesus and in the early tradition of the Church. In other words, Native American hymns and musical instruments can be used within liturgical ceremonies, but the use of bread and wine for the eucharistic celebration must remain faithful to the experience of Jesus as revealed through the Gospels and in the ancient tradition of the Church. We must be careful not to confuse the truth or the Church with limited cultural patterns and expressions.

 

[trickster]

I have to agree with Trickster. I won’t go to another Latin mass, going to a mass and not understanding a word they say is totally worthless to me. But I have nothing against people who want to go to a Latin Mass.

I think the Church needs to adapt to the people they are servicing to, not the other way around. That doesn’t mean to take away from the Mass but adapting the Mass.

Its like when in Rome do as the Romans.

Hi Luvtosew…I think though that you would agree that we should have one or two parishes at least in each diocese that offer the extraordinary (Tridentine) mass to our brothers and sisters who are spiritually nourished by the “dignity” and “seriousness” of silence, reverence and so forth.

I think there is something very beautiful about the Tridentine Mass because it was brought in at the Council of Trent and part of the counter-reformation. Prior to that there was great diversity in the masses and that was abused by priest prior to the COuncil of Trent. In the introduction of the Tridentine Mass, the Catholic Church stood unified globally and all of its peoples spoke one language and one liturgy…there is a certain power in that.

In the 1960’s however, in an age of ecumenism and inte-religious dialouge that isolation and unity of the Mass was or is not as necessary and the new mass does provide spiritual nourishment…as it that I have always experienced in the new mass but we ought to strive for choice…the ways we celebrate the mass is also spiritualy nourishing and all I have been saying is that for Native Catholics a culturally rich mass may indeed be very spiritually nourishing while continuing the 2000 year history and meaning of the mass and the re-enactment of Our Lord’s sacrifice…

Most Catholics do support the idea of “adapting to the people that they are servicing” and most of us are “moderate” and we do support that unity of liturgy within the diversity of expression…so thank you…you make me feel very good and supported.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

I don’t want the local ‘culture’ added to Mass. These additions are banal, distracting and made up on the spot.

There was a notice at the Live Aid recording in the 80’s: “Leave your ego at the door”.
Works for Mass, too.

The problem now is not finding an ‘inculturated’ Mass; the problem is finding one said according to the mind of the Church and not of Fr X and the local ‘liturgists’.

Nowadays we see what inculturation means: babel.

Banal, distracting and made up on the spot? Where is your research and what do you base your arguements on. How can you say those things without insulting the bishops in those dioceses that these "local cultural: masses happen? Do you maintain a monopoly on the true church?

An “inculturated Mass” what the frig is that. Inculturation is a theological framework that allows for a conversation to explore what happens when gospel meets culture. The mass that you describe as a mass consistent with the “mind of the church” in itself is a "local cultural’ mass of western civilization…do your homework brother or sister…

Where do you find the word babel in the definition of “inculturation”…kidding…in any case, I look forward to your discussions and thoughts.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

The majority of “Catholics” don’t believe in the Real Presence and disregard the evils of contraception and abortifacients. They don’t see anything wrong with women “priests” and homosexual “marriages”.

Is Holy Mother Church to “adapt” to these people?

Such an opinion, that the Church is to adapt to us and not we to her, is dangerous. Not to mention the height of pride and arrogance.

LaudateDominum…I did not get that meaning from luvtosew’s response…how did you arrive at that point. Making an arguement that the church should not service the local community by equaling the local community as groups that don’t believe in the real presence and are into reproductive health and are totally and blindly politically correct with respect to women priest and homosexual marriages is to really undermine the intelligence of the Catholic community AND the bishops of which they look to for spiritual nourishment.

The church has always looked at ways to make the liturgy and its mission in each diocese meaningful to the those within the bishops’ fold, some bishops have made mistakes and I am sure they went to their rewards feeling the pain of their failures, we can only pray with a compassion for them…you and I are not bishops nor even priests, we do not have to look at how we are nourishing or depleting peoples souls in our decison making. Bishops and priests have shown remarkable pastoral care in providing love and support - within the teaching context of the church - and when the people in good conscience cannot accept an interpretation of a particular part of the church teachings, there is love, forgiveness and the ultimate belief in the supremacy of conscience.

I think that would be a fairer interepreation of what LuvToSew said…but I can speak for her and she will respond in her own time and place…

Look forward to your thoughts.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Well let me say it another way, you are putting words in my mouth, they should try and accommadate the culture they are servicing, I never said to change their cathechism for them.

The majority of “Catholics” don’t believe in the Real Presence and disregard the evils of contraception and abortifacients. They don’t see anything wrong with women “priests” and homosexual “marriages”.

the majority, wow, maybe thay can’t understand latin!! has nothing to do with honoring the cultural of a area,

Now because I have a different opinion than you that makes me prideful and arrogant, I think its just the other way around.

Hey I agree with you…as I stated in my response to Laude…something (forgot the latin word … take care and say your thought, “represent”! as we say in the social justice activist community

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

These Africans seem quite happy with the Traditional Mass.
FSSP in Africa

If I converted to Orthodox Judaism, I wouldn’t expect them to start including African-American, or Caribbean or African rituals in their rites.

I would adapt to their rituals, whatever it is at the time.

So if one is converting to Catholicism in the Latin Rite, don’t try to change the rite into an unrecognizable form.

Petition for a Native American rite then. The Church seems to be very open to other rites.

TrueLight interesting points…let me go at them one at a time…cause they inspire new thoughts for me.

In Victoria,BC, we have a close relationship to the a synogogue that is Orthodox (conservative) and yet they are the strongest supporters of aboriginal people. I have actually never talked to them about how there synogogue would deal with things…I have talked in a Islam Temple with an Iman about how Islam would of treated Native Americans had they arrived first…and his reponse was simply that they would not have colonized…so that line of thnking - your right - needs further work on my part…thanks for point that out.

In terms of “converting” to the Latin Rite…I am talkiing about Aboriginal Catholic communities who have catholic for at least 100 years (1850’s etc.) not aboriginal converts to the church. Even prior to the Vatican II changes, there was always accomodation in Oblate Services for Aboriginal culture…what Vatican II did in my mind was create a guidebook on fully implementing that pre-Vatican practice…so I think we are talking about two different things on your second point.

In terms of the Native American rite, I have actually thought about it…and your right it is concievable…however, guess what…when the Roman Church acknowledges those rites, they also accept the differences…native spirituality and cathoicism - research shows us - are already very close and the question is - IF within the Latin Rite, Native Masses can be achieved - why would the Church say no and then accomodate it as a rite like you express…

I’m not getting to the nux of my thinking here as it is new and kind of exciting…I hope that you will explore this with me further.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

“The majority of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and disregard the evils of contraception and abortifacients.” Documentation, please. This is mere opinion and about as useful as saying “The majority of Catholics believe in UFO’s and leprechauns.” It may or may not be true, but there is simply no way of proving it one way or another. It’s not helpful.
“Is Holy Mother Church to adapt to these people?” If by “these people” you mean the variety of cultures which make up the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, then, why yes, the Church does adapt to these people and has been doing so since the Council of Jerusalem when the Church decided that gentiles need not be circumcized in order to believe in Jesus and his mission. The Church does not alter the message which Jesus has commissioned her to preach to the world, but the Church freely utilized a variety of methods to preach that message. This includes adapting the liturgy, in part, to the cultures in which the faith has found a home. It is not dangerous to do so, and in fact, it is due to such adaptation that the faith has found a home in cultures across the world far from its center in Rome. The Church is not a universal Church for nothing. It may be pride and arrogance for a particular culture to demand that the Church adapt to that culture, but the Church has always gone forth believing that culture, in all its variety, is a gift from God and enhances the Church’s understanding of herself. For the Church not to reach out and attempt to incarnate itself within culture, or to seek the Christ as he is already present within culture, would be hypocrisy. It would be saying that Christ cannot be found in culture unless we bring him. The mission of the Church is to enable cultures to discover the Christ as he is already present to them and to join the universal Church in expressing that faith as one people of God.

AWESOME! Tsuwano, I just say “ditto” thanks for sharing those thoughts…

Blessings
Bruce Ferguson
Trickste

 

[trickster]

It is one thing to translate the missal into a vernacular, it’s another to change the teachings of scripture and tradition to fit whatever a certain culture believes.

Filii Dei, you are 100% correct! I am only suggesting to call into services Native thought, images, practices that a) deepen our undertstanding to the church’s teaching and b) speaks to an audience that is currently not being spoken to - that is evangelization …

Cultures and therefore spiritual expressions of those cultures are often human things and therefore imperfect, so in our context as Catholics we must always read cultural and spiritual realities within the context of Catholic teaching…so I agree with thje wisdom expressed in your one sentence!~

Bruce Ferguson|
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Redemptionis Sacramentum

The Mass is pretty black and white…well actually black and red.

Awesome, thank you for the clarification Deo Gratias. Your references (and I only read them quickly and don’t pretend to be an expert here) does note that there is discretion available to the Conferences of Bishops and how they are in process with the Vatican on these things…so if the Fransicans got that marble or pottery vessels, that is perfectly acceptable it seems by the references you make.

That flexibility on the part of the Vatican and our Bishops is hopeful for many aborignal Catholics like myself who are affected negatively by a gold plated chalice…but the gold plated chalice is also symbolic of what is best in Europe…and it is a beautiful symbol of centuries that should not be dismissed cause the Spanish people did what they did to the Maya and Incas to get that…so I am not adament about this…I just want to express my feelings on it…and gold plated chalices are not spiritually nourishing to me.

It seem St Francis also rejected forms that were norm in the church of his day…not that I am a saint…but I think that I am allowed my feelings in the church…and there is a sensitivity towards me and I am also trying to develop a sensitivity for those - like yourself - have a deep reverence for Our Lord and a deep connection to the symbolism in which that reverence is situated.

So “megwetch” (Thank You in Algonquin) for that clarification…

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

trickster;8710603:

When you say “pottery is not acceptable” what do you base this on? I agree that any chalice holdiing the body or blood of Christ needs to have a capacity not to break or leak the blood of Chriist as we would need to make reparation for abuse of the eucharist. so I don’t disagree…however, your thinking is coming across to me a bit strict (too black and white) and a bit medieval … and it is exactly that kind of thinking that creates a sadness in my heart around the openess of Catholics towards inculturation…we also need to find materials and symbols that meet those tests that you are talking about…so elaboration would be helpful to me.

Bruce,

RICH C…it might surprise you … I am in 100% agreement of EVERYTHING you have noted in your response. I don’t know if you have had the chance to read the rest of my positng, nor do I expect you too…but be assured that you and I are on the same page.

The ideas of “paganism”, “syncretism” and “New Age” seem to be attached to a lot of thinkers in Catholic Answers and those three things dominated their opposition to my assertion that we - in the Aboriginal Catholic Family - still have a lot of work to do to fully participate in our church. There are historical reasons (i.e. residential schools, Church being the puppet of Stage agendas in colonization, etc.) that there is an aborginal rejection of the Church and a renewal of all things that are traditional in the Aboriginal spiritulalty…yet, as both a Catholic and Aboriginal I know that we are not that far apart, I know that most Aboriginal people I know in my familiy, community, etc. long for a reconciliation with the church as does the church for the aboriginal community …JP II is so loved in teh community and we consider him the Aboriginal Pope…JP II had the ability to be that global Jesus and JP II said to many of the world people that he believe in us too… so that is why I posted the quesiton.

As you see in the post, many people are opposed to what I am saying because they don’t understand our church’s history and role of culture as a tool of evangelization…so thank you for your thoughts, your prayers and even in repsect to the gold ;plate chalice, that has been clarified with some quotes of Redemtorus or something…

Blessing

Bruce |Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Warrenton;8711817:

I certainly agree with you when you claim that the Gospel is true and we must adapt ourselves to it, but I’m not sure what you mean when you say the Church is true. In the fact that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and serves as his presence in the world until he comes again, then yes, I definitely agree that the Church is true. But if you mean that the Church is true because Latin is used within her liturgies or that some European cultural patterns are present within her, then I would say you should rethink your definition of truth. These cultural distinctions are not what make the Church true. I believe that all people should be a part of the Universal Church, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that all cultural patterns within the Church must be European. Native Americans are just as free to express the Gospel and the Church in Native American cultural patterns, though they must remain faithful to the expression of community and Church as portrayed in the Gospels, the experience of Jesus and in the early tradition of the Church. In other words, Native American hymns and musical instruments can be used within liturgical ceremonies, but the use of bread and wine for the eucharistic celebration must remain faithful to the experience of Jesus as revealed through the Gospels and in the ancient tradition of the Church. We must be careful not to confuse the truth or the Church with limited cultural patterns and expressions.

Hi Tsuwano…thanks for that response…I will have to delve into what Warrenton is saying partly cause I have to look up the word “empiracle” before I can develop my answer.

I agree with you…and what came to my mind when you wrote this…is that as Aboriginal Catholics we are saying that we have accepted Jesus into our bands, tribes and communities…we are Catholic and Jesus is a member of our band, tribe or community.

If we could imagine Jesus inviting us to a meal, we - as aboriginal people would naturally accept as we like feasting, telling stories, singing and sharing what we have, I don’t think people would dismiss that image - Jesus would not refuse us at his dinner, he would talk to us, learn from us, share from us and love us and be loved by us. Yet, many of his disciples might try and stop us to go to the meal because we didn’t have the right clothes, or asked too many questions like Mary in the Mary and Martha story…when we come to Jesus’ meal, we can only come as aboriginal people…and to be in true communion Jesus would accept us for the way we are…

So, in bringing our drums to that meal, we are bringing ourselves, we are learning and translating and drawing meaning from a cultural perspect that is truly our own…it is not a perspective that is less worthy but a perspective that is brought to life or emancipated by the Gospel…so I continue to ask these questions and with all the debate and thinking and fear in responding to me…I am learning alot and I hope others are learning as well…are we not being catholic in having that discussion…

Thanks again for your words…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[TrueLight]

.

I’m not getting to the nux of my thinking here as it is new and kind of exciting…I hope that you will explore this with me further.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

I’d rather not give you ideas, LOL.

In any case, if you are successful with all those changes, please be sure to apply them to the OF.

 

[awatkins69]

Bruce,

First let me say I’ll say a prayer for you as you seem to have some deep wounds regarding your relationship with the Church.

Secondly, there are standards for the liturgy that are more “black and white” than our opinions here, but have some flexibility according to the local bishops. According to #289-296 from the 4th Edition of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, it may or may not be permissible to use a chalice of pottery; that is up to the bishop in your diocese.

Regarding the original post, asking if traditional Catholicism is “indigenous-friendly” is like asking if the Church was culturally intolerant for virtually all of its history. If you only accept the Church as she is presented since 1965, you’re really rejecting the Church, don’t you see? Before the 1960s local cultures thrives within the Church (of course their are exceptions, as the members of Christ’s body are subject to Original Sin) but the Church was content to send virtually the same Mass to each of them and let their impressions on the Faith subsist largely of extra-liturgical developments.

I think the Church was wise to pursue that policy, and if it returns to it in the future, don’t feel that the unique gifts of your culture are unwelcome. The Mass should have a timeless setting, because it surrounds the Eternal Sacrifice. Instead, why not sing local hymns, have Eucharistic processions outside the liturgy wearing respectful garb of your culture, find popular devotions that suit your unique needs and expressions, and teach the Faith to your children in the flavor of your ancestors?

All of these kinds of expression have always been part of the Faith since the catacombs, and even those Catholics I know who are least accepting of Vatican II don’t denigrate them; many cherish them in their ancestor’s ways.

I can tell you’ve been hurt by a lack of charity, but I encourage you to offer up your hurt to God and don’t be afraid to discover the Church’s treasured tradition.

Well said.

 

[trickster]

I’d rather not give you ideas, LOL.

In any case, if you are successful with all those changes, please be sure to apply them to the OF.

Ah, but you do inspire me with your thinking…and that’s a good thing! Having said that, why don’t you see it for the Extraordinary form? Like I said somewhere else, many masses prior to Vatican II in indigenous communities around the world showed innovations that might surprise the newer traditionalists…many of the innovations inspired the changes considered in Vatican II.

Extraordinary or ordinary, it is the same catholic mass…why would you differentiate? Why would you consider indigneous applications not for the EF…

Thanks

Bruce Ferguson

 

[Tsuwano]

Tsuwano;8714536:

Hi Tsuwano…thanks for that response…I will have to delve into what Warrenton is saying partly cause I have to look up the word “empiracle” before I can develop my answer.

I agree with you…and what came to my mind when you wrote this…is that as Aboriginal Catholics we are saying that we have accepted Jesus into our bands, tribes and communities…we are Catholic and Jesus is a member of our band, tribe or community.

If we could imagine Jesus inviting us to a meal, we - as aboriginal people would naturally accept as we like feasting, telling stories, singing and sharing what we have, I don’t think people would dismiss that image - Jesus would not refuse us at his dinner, he would talk to us, learn from us, share from us and love us and be loved by us. Yet, many of his disciples might try and stop us to go to the meal because we didn’t have the right clothes, or asked too many questions like Mary in the Mary and Martha story…when we come to Jesus’ meal, we can only come as aboriginal people…and to be in true communion Jesus would accept us for the way we are…

So, in bringing our drums to that meal, we are bringing ourselves, we are learning and translating and drawing meaning from a cultural perspect that is truly our own…it is not a perspective that is less worthy but a perspective that is brought to life or emancipated by the Gospel…so I continue to ask these questions and with all the debate and thinking and fear in responding to me…I am learning alot and I hope others are learning as well…are we not being catholic in having that discussion…

Thanks again for your words…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

I agree with what you have written here, but I would like to add one more thought if I may. In your third paragraph you write that " . . . in bringing our drums to that meal, we are bringing ourselves, we are learning and translating and drawing meaning from a cultural perspective that is truly our own." I would go further and say that the Church herself is recreated, as it were, when new cultural expressions find a home within her and are able to express the faith truthfully with new cultural patterns. It is not only the people who are entering the Church and expressing their faith who are changed by the encounter. The Church is also changed and made more fully in likeness to the Lord who has called all of us into his presence. The Church is not obligated to preach the Gospel to people of various cultures only for the spiritual welfare of those people, but also for her own spiritual welfare. The Church is converted no less than those who receive the faith as their own, because in accepting those people and those cultures within her embrace, the Church conforms herself more closely to the will of Christ who called all to be one. The Church resembles Christ more closely in its acceptance of a variety of cultural expressions of our one faith and makes clear that the Lord’s call for all to be one is not a call for all to be the same.