Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?

[Miriam_M]

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.

[ralfy]

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.

I'm not talking about multiculturalism as being equivalent to evangelization but how aspects of other cultures become part of the Church as it was formed during its early period, as it grew as part of colonialism, and as more in Africa and elsewhere join it.

[Miriam_M]

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.

I'm not talking about multiculturalism as being equivalent to evangelization but how aspects of other cultures become part of the Church as it was formed during its early period, as it grew as part of colonialism, and as more in Africa and elsewhere join it.

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.

[ralfy]

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.

That's why I wrote that I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

[Miriam_M]

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.

That's why I wrote that I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

Great. There's room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.

[ralfy]

Great. There's room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.

On threads. For each thread, there's usually one topic.

[Miriam_M]

Great. There's room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.

On threads. For each thread, there's usually one topic.

No, actually.  Posters are not that rigid here.  A thread can encompass many topics within it, and often does.

[ralfy]

No, actually.  Posters are not that rigid here.  A thread can encompass many topics within it, and often does.

Which is what you were doing. I was talking about the OP's argument.

To recap, the OP asks "if the Church is supposed to be for all men in all times and places," then why is the Church "Euro-centric" in insisting on the use of wine for Masses celebrated in places where it's not available?

The obvious answer is because it's available; otherwise, Catholics in these places would have to adjust, which is what they've been doing on many occasions for centuries. Which brings us to the point of Euro-centricity: is it the case that the Church is so? When we look at its early centuries and the period of colonization, we see that it is and not. That's my point.

So, your claim that you were also talking about the OP's argument is wrong. You were referring to multiculturalism as part of evangelization, and thought that I was referring to that as well. You were also wrong on that.

[james03]

The Church is "Euro-centric" because it came from the Roman Empire. 

[TradGranny]

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?


The word "Euro-centric" is a novelty created by the satanic left in the 1970 as a part of their covert attack on the Church.


In other words, when the Church followed the command of Jesus to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, that was simply unacceptable to the enemy and its followers. The enemy used the French Revolution to try to destroy the Church, used numerous Communist revolutions to try to destroy the Church, and is currently using control of language, doublethink, cancel culture and lies like the Church being too Euro-Centric in yet another attempt to destroy the Church.


We saw "Pope" Bergolio bring pagan idols into Catholic Churches in a demonically-inspired attempt to be less Euro-Centric.


Therefore your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.

[Miriam_M]

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?

Your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.

[Adding some bolding to TG's own]

Indeed, TG.  Thank you for noticing the obvious.  I bold in the OP the present tense used.  In addition, it is to be noted that during the late 20th century, members of the Franciscan Order, with the argument of present-tense multiculturalism, wanted to substitute rice and tea -- for bread and wine -- when confecting the sacrament among those of Asian descent.  Again, their argument was that the Church was not currently multicultural enough.  The opening post in this thread refers to similar local attempts in earlier eras to determine liturgical use from cultural practices.  All of that is forbidden by Catholic sacramental theology. The issue is simultaneously ancient and "new."  Many modernists and secularists in the church have sought to change her unchangeable doctrine by altering liturgical practice on the basis of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism is a very old controversy in Catholicism, dating back to her beginning and continuing in the 21st century.

Playing the devil's advocate here, but couldn't one object that if the Church is supposed to be for all men in all times and places, why is the central act of our religion, the Mass, dependent on material almost exclusively from the Mediterranean world, namely wine?  That this problem occurred is clear since, for example, missionaries in New Spain started planting vineyards, and I am aware that viticulture has spread to much of the world with European expansion, so my argument is rather moot by this point in time.  However, many parts of the world, in the past, didn't even know what wine is let alone have access to it.  In the 13th century Rome had to scold Greenland settlers for using beer in the sacrament, for example.

[ralfy]

The Church is "Euro-centric" because it came from the Roman Empire.

I think it started with several Jews, and joined by gentiles.

[ralfy]

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?


The word "Euro-centric" is a novelty created by the satanic left in the 1970 as a part of their covert attack on the Church.


In other words, when the Church followed the command of Jesus to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, that was simply unacceptable to the enemy and its followers. The enemy used the French Revolution to try to destroy the Church, used numerous Communist revolutions to try to destroy the Church, and is currently using control of language, doublethink, cancel culture and lies like the Church being too Euro-Centric in yet another attempt to destroy the Church.


We saw "Pope" Bergolio bring pagan idols into Catholic Churches in a demonically-inspired attempt to be less Euro-Centric.


Therefore your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.

It refers to centering on Europe, but the Church started with Jews in what is now Israel, and even involved what Christians see as the Old Testament. In short, it wasn't even Euro-centric at the start.

And your last point is also wrong because the OP refers to missionaries in New Spain and 13th-century Rome. In short, nowhere close to "multiculturalism in a contemporary context."

[TradGranny]

.

I think it started with several Jews, and joined by gentiles.

The Church was started by Catholic converts, not Jews.

[ralfy]

The Church was started by Catholic converts, not Jews.

They were Jews because they came from various Jewish tribes and read from the Hebrew Bible, but they were also Christian because they believed in Jesus' teachings.