I suppose it would be good to expand a bit on yesterday’s long post about traditionalists and ecumenism. I’m frankly baffled why it is that ecumenism tends to be such a big issue with so many traditionalists. There are many other things that have changed in the last five decades in the Church that haven’t often been for the better: catechesis, parochial education, public teaching on moral issues, the list goes on and on. (For the record, I’m not a traditionalist per se, but I have a great deal of sympathy for much of the traditionalist cause. I support the ready availability of the Tridentine Mass, though not its exclusive use. I agree that we need to maintain familiarity with the many treasures that the Church acquired before Vatican II. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Assisi meetings, although my objections are rooted in I Cor 10:24-33 and the desire not to cause offense to Christians who may not understand the motivation of the meeting. That being said, I find attacks on Vatican II and the recent popes to be uncharitable, lacking in the respect due those in authority and counterproductive.)

I understand that a case can be made that the Church had long eschewed cordial relations with outsiders, while I find that to be a gross oversimplification. However, even if one were to accept that position, how would one justify it in light of St. Paul’s approach to the Athenians in Acts 17. St. Paul would have been within his rights to condemn the idolatry and blasphemy of the Athenians. Had he done so, he would not have had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to them. Instead he built on what he had in common with the Athenians. How is our situation different? Despite the fevered writings of a few, nothing the Church has said indicates that evangelism is over. There has been a change in methods and in how we are to “target” certain groups, that’s all.

One last point demands attention. In Mr. Michael’s recent post, he offers a catalog of quotes that are quite antagonistic to the Jews, on the basis of the assertion that they bear responsibility for the crucifixion.

No Catholic would deny that “in the sacrifice of the Mass they [priests] make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father. From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength” >Catechism 1566.

Why would Jews be condemned for the role of their ancestors in facilitating Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice while priests are commended for their role in perpetuating the same sacrifice?