mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (11/24/89)
I have started to read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's _Principles of Catholic Theology_ (1987, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, ISBN 0-89870-133-3), partly under the influence of some articles in this forum by Chris van Wyck and partly from a desire to choose, if I must have an adversary to stimulate reflection, a *signficant* adversary :-) I may offer other progress reports as I slog through this, but here I offer a simple initial appraisal. Ratzinger immediately states the central problems -- "that of reconciling history with the present" and its Christian-specific instantiation, "which interpretation of our biblical heritage is the valid one." And he suggests that this "objective" problem has "a personal aspect in the question of the apostolic succession." From his table of contents, it appears that these "principles" of theology he offers begin from, or deal carefully with matters of anthroplogy (I almost like the man in spite of myself), and he returns to this anthropological element at the end of the book. Ratzinger is clear, direct and seems to inhabit something at least remotely similar to my own universe. Therefore, this task is promising (to me :-), if I get complaints, I will stop bothering the net about it.) I will note here only his starting point, which is the confessions of the earliest church (as for example Romans 10:9-10) and their evolution into the creeds. He points out that the "I" of the creeds' "I believe in ..." amounts to a collective subject. This is the statement of the *church* more than it is a merely personal statement by individual believers. This is a point I have touched on before, since the modern statement of the Nicene Creed in the Episcopal Prayer book makes it explicit by using "We" instead of the older 1st person singular. Ratzinger reflects this back into the content of the creeds, Trinitarian doctrine, by citing the Jesuit Henri de Lubac, "the mystery of the Trinity has opened to us a totally new perspective: the ground of being is _communio_" Ratzinger says that "this transtemporal subject, the _communio Ecclesiae_, is the mediator between being and time." And here is where I first start to object, not just to this very metaphysical form of statement, but to an insidious notion of "unchangeablility" that seems to derive in his mind from the singular number of the pronoun being used. As if he forgets that the church that he himself has called collective is inherently a plural formation of individuals, he gives this collective a hypostatic monism, saying, "The Church is the locus that gives unity to the content of faith [so far, I go along with him] ... there can be a waxing or waning, a forgetting or remembering, but no recasting of truth in time." Ratzinger's intent is to name (as the Church, properly so-called) a single element in the flux of history which is this "I", this unchanging subject of the Creed: "No arbitrary selection of constants can ensure continued existence. Properly phrased, then, the question for today is whether that memory can continue to exist through which the Church becomes the Church and without which she sinks into nothingness." At this point, my internal metaphysical umpire cries "Foul!" Ratzinger has just begged the most basic of all questions in favor of Greek metaphysics and the "immutability of being" where I see as our only fixed point the non- metaphysical statement that the Church is the Body of Christ. As bodies, we are continually recycling our material components (just as the Church is continually replenished by new members as the old die away.) The unity of "self" in our bodies is an experiential fact, it is "given" -- but the nature of that unity is not at all obvious. In particular, I see Ratzinger claiming that some one element or grouping of elements persists unchanged as Christian "truth." Insofar as God is unchanging, and Christ is God and the Church is the Body of Christ, one *may* be able to come to such a conclusion. But I, for one, am unwilling at the start to concede that "God doesn't change implies the Body of Christ doesn't change" is anything but a Greek word-game, not relevant to the life of an individual Christian or to the Church. I am going to pause at this point. Here, it seems, the battle lines are drawn, according to which side grants the Greek style of philosophy merit. I will, in all cases, prefer a biblical statement to a metaphysical one. That is, more or less, what I *mean* by revelation as a category of thought. I will only reject (my fallible understanding of) a biblical statement when I cannot reconcile it to (my equally fallible understanding of) fact. But I am looking forward to the manner in which Ratzinger will weave anthropology and tradition/authority into his argument. That is where I expect that I may find a constructive reaction to his statement. -- Michael L. Siemon Hell is a different pain, for there is despair. ...!cucard!dasys1!mls But of all pains that lead to salvation, this is the most pain: to see thy beloved suffer. -- Julian of Norwich
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/25/89)
In light of this fine commentary on Ratzinger's book, I thought I should post a historical tidbit I found recently. Xavier Rynne (a pseudonym) in his four volume work on Vatican II, clearly identifies (then) Monsignor Ratizinger as being squarely in the liberal/pro- gressive camp. I found this very interesting in light of his reputation as the Pope's conservative theological watchdog. My question is this: has his theology grown more conservative as the years passed, or did the definition of "liberal" move and leave him in a lurch? Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
smith_c@ncsatl.uucp (11/29/89)
In article <Nov.25.04.20.46.1989.12524@athos.rutgers.edu>, conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: > Xavier Rynne (a > pseudonym) in his four volume work on Vatican II, clearly identifies > (then) Monsignor Ratizinger as being squarely in the liberal/pro- > gressive camp. ... > I found this very interesting in light of his reputation as the > Pope's conservative theological watchdog. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Father Ratzinger got "mugged" by liberation theology, I think. At least, for me, the very idea combining biblical and marxist themes to manufacture revolutionary class struggles in pursuit of social justice turns my stomach. Social justice and communism should never be spoken in the same breath or written in the same sentence, pardon me for breaking my own rule here. It seems to me that liberation theology puts the cart before the horse: Social justice first then salvation. Communism is inherently evil. The Book of Common Prayer defines sin as when we misuse our freedom to disobey God. Communism, being a system which seeks to accomplish the two major goals of eliminating all religious belief/practices from the face of the earth and spreading communism (recursive documentation), is evil by nature and those who practice communism sin against God. Now, it's my understanding that some communists are very religious; how they reconcile their beliefs with communism's goals is beyond me. Daniel Ortega, whom I despise, is a daily communicant. Some may view my belief concerning the sinfulness of communism too political; Communism is a political system which seeks to destroy religion and it is for this reason that anyone who propogates a system which seeks to destroy religion sins against God. Sincerely, gatech!ncsatl!smith_c
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) (11/30/89)
In <Nov.28.23.25.34.1989.24911@athos.rutgers.edu> smith_c@ncsatl.uucp writes: > At least, for me, the very idea combining >biblical and marxist themes to manufacture revolutionary class struggles in >pursuit of social justice turns my stomach. Although modern communism may advacote or require some evil actions, the underlying philosophy goes very well with that of Christ. In fact, one of the few communist societies to ever have worked was the first contury Christians. Acts 2:44-45(NIV) states: "All believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need" If this is not communism, I do not know what is. Yes, today's version of communism is evil, and is failing because it is missing Christ, but please don't say an entire sociey sharing everything is bad. BTW: My theory on why Christians hate communism: Politics. There is one political party in this nation that claims to stand for Christian values. It also has something major against commies. (MHO) life: Jochen Fritz internet: joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu bitnet: gk2s@rpitsmts Let's remember the Gospel tells us to love each other.
ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) (11/30/89)
Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven. He was a religious reformer who despised the established order which he felt victimized the unfortunate. He spent his time with lepers and prostitutes and tax collectors. And you believe that liberation theology, which states that Christianity is not just for the fortunate but for all, and is an appropriate vehicle for social protest against injustice, is not valid? The people of Central America have for centuries been stuggling aginst domination by an elite few, who, by the way, also receive (or is it take) communion regularly. In my opinion, these people are less true Christians that the Communists, who are at least fighting for the common people, even if you and I think them misguided. Fortunately, it is not for me to judge, but for God. However, I think liberation theology is not only a valid reading of the Scriptures, but an extremely accurate one. Jason Albert Princeton University
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (12/11/89)
Edmund Jason Albert writes: > >Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a >needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven. He was a >religious reformer who despised the established order which he felt >victimized the unfortunate. He spent his time with lepers and >prostitutes and tax collectors. An important point here, Jason, is that while Jesus associated with them He did not prostitute Himself nor did He collect taxes. Yet, we find priests carrying and using weapons. This is not a flame, because I essential agree that the church has been wrong in not speaking out against the wrongs and for not doing more to elevate those who are suffering. But I'm not sure that promoting the killing of others and the destruction of property is a valid expression of our Christian Faith. The problem with being wealthy and powerful is that for the vast majority of people this is an incredible corrupting influence. Certainly there are rich Christians who use their wealth wisely to help others--I've met some who give away an incredible amount of their income. They live in middle-class neighborhoods and aren't impressed by their own wealth. Part of my dislike for the killing and destruction comes from my experiences in Viet Nam. So I readily admit to a bias here. But I also understand the Bible to teach that as a Christian I'm not called to do such things. Personally, I'd rather go to these people and build hospitals and schools, provide them with food to keep them going while they began to raise their own, etc. I would not think it wrong to also protest against abuses and wrongs, but I'd prefer to do it face-to-face. However, I would think it quite wrong to promote and foster armed rebellion. But understand that this is due to my understanding and experience of the Bible and my walk with Christ. For me, liberation theology holds no appeal for the reasons stated above. If there is something that you think I should consider that might sway my thinking, please post away. Peace, Gene