• Vincent Kundukulam

In general, there are three ways of doing theology in the Catholic Church: a) which defends dogmatic certainty; b) which participates in a wider conversation on adequate theories of text-interpretation and world-interpretation; c) which limits itself to intra-textual considerations.

An example for the first would be the position given by the Council of Trent, which stands for preserving the purity of the gospel and doctrines in the Church. To this decree, the truth contained in the Scripture, which the apostles received from the mouth of Christ and which through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit passed on to us by the Apostles, are to be preserved intact. In question of morality and faith, nobody should dare to interpret them against the sense in which they are explained by the Church. And by Church, it means, the hierarchy i.e. Pope and Magisterium. They only possess the legitimate criterion for the valid interpretation.

The problem of the first model is that it nurtures a defensive and domineering attitude towards others. Although the strong concern for continuity of doctrine is not in itself wrong, it presumes that Church has nothing more to understand in the mysteries of faith. Is Church a museum? If not, our primary concern must not be to preserve the old tradition as it is. Hence, the group of theologians belonging to the second model opt for an unending process of critically examining the way of understanding and living faith in the Church. To them, the diversity of critical readings offers theologians a good opportunity to update the meaning of Christian faith. This critical interpretation will be in no way disastrous to Christian identity, as Stephen Sykes says. To him, the identity is sustained through a process of interaction between the inward element and the external forms of Christianity.

A thorough study of the history shows that the very birth of Christianity happened due to the adequate attempts of Jesus to renew the Jewish Tradition. Jesus established the New Testament by reinterpreting the OT concepts of law, temple, family, Jerusalem and certain messianic expectations. While Jesus renewed the Thora, he did not destroy its prophetic and experiential content but reformed its faith-praxis. Most of all, Jesus rejected the absolutist and legalistic claims of tradition. He transformed them through prayer, table-fellowship and reaching out to the poor. The Apostles were ready to follow the inclusive vision of Jesus because he was not merely a prophet, but the Living Son of God, who confirmed his divine authority through resurrection. St. Paul was very Jewish in fundamental principles of theology but he developed a different Christian social identity after meeting with the resurrected Christ.

Unfortunately, we see that those OT ways of using of symbols, organizational structures, legalistic interpretations and hierarchical attitudes, which Jesus had once rejected are reintroduced in the Church under the guise of revivalism in Church. Church leaders often substantiate their actions in reference to the need of preserving the identity. But the whole question is what identity we are speaking about? If it leads us back again to an Old Testament, this identity is not at all Christian. The fact is that even the most basic tenets which we consider as constitutive of Christian identity need not be innocent. If not critically examined, they could also lead us to exclusive attitudes because they are at times born out of the efforts to establish a separate identity of Church from other religious groups.

• kundu1962@gmail.com