FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Name That Cleric! Installment Sept. 3rd/09.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Brothers and Sisters, please prepare yourselves for the next installment of Name That Cleric!

Ok, who is the cleric who wrote this:


"The Resurrection cannot be a[n] historical event in the same sense as [was] the Crucifixion ..." Yikes!

Did you guess who this was?

A cyber pat on the back for the soul who named:

http://infundelumencordibus.blogspot.com...leric.html
(09-03-2009, 05:26 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: [ -> ]Brothers and Sisters, please prepare yourselves for the next installment of Name That Cleric!

Ok, who is the cleric who wrote this:


"The Resurrection cannot be a[n] historical event in the same sense as [was] the Crucifixion ..." Yikes!

Did you guess who this was?

A cyber pat on the back for the soul who named:

http://infundelumencordibus.blogspot.com...leric.html

Yikes? What is so shocking about that. The crucifixion was done by the hands of men; the Resurrection was not.

Also, you consistently refer to a Pope or a Cardinal or a Priest improperly. I move that you're account name be stripped of any sort of titles and we refer to you as "Frank".
Again, supply context, or you are lame.  This is again a statement of fact.  NO ONE WITNESSED THE RESURRECTION.  We have witnesses of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, but no one saw it occur.  Is Ratzinger denying the bodily Resurrection of Jesus?  Can't tell since you don't provide any context.
(09-03-2009, 05:41 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, supply context, or you are lame.  This is again a statement of fact.  NO ONE WITNESSED THE RESURRECTION.  We have witnesses of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, but no one saw it occur.  Is Ratzinger denying the bodily Resurrection of Jesus?  Can't tell since you don't provide any context.

The book is online here:  (scroll to page 186 )

http://books.google.com/books?id=a6lpzThdPQYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=principles+of+catholic+theology+186&source=bl&ots=EUTBkpU03V&sig=pYKrVCrKn2hnmlM-QADvYWgAAAw&hl=en&ei=91-gSqjDJZic8QaRupzjDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I don't see any heresy in it especially if you read a couple pages on either side.   Honestly,  I also don't see much valuable stuff in it.   It sounds heavily influenced by de Chardin in some of the phrases.   

It could be that then-Card. Ratzinger was doing what Fr. Malachi Martin was doing in the late 60's and early 70's.  Trying to utilize the language and forms of the popular theologians of the day and explaining Catholic Orthodoxy in language suited to that audience.   That stuff is full of sentences that often deride something precariously close to Catholic Doctrine and you have to bring a lot of orthodoxy to the table to place it in context.   In this mode, they are always good at explaining what something is not, without supplementing it with what is.   The Resurrection may have multiple senses to how a person understands it, but it is a historical event.  Period.   It's not a resurrection like Lazarus, it is a Resurrection of the body in a glorified form.   Exactly how that looks is a bit of a mystery.   A simple clarification like that could have prevented a lot of people from adopting a sedevacantist stance.  Instead what we're left with is a vaguely worded apparent denial of something, either the Resurrection or some sense of the Resurrection.   

The difference between Fr. Martin and Card. Ratzinger is, I believe Fr. Martin realized by the mid- 70's that many of the theologians were actual heretics and only used orthodox formulations to cover their tracks and he turned his attention to the laiety. 


That's a quote clearly taken without context on purpose to make it what it is not.

He goes on to say that it transcends history and "it [the Resurrection] belongs, at the same time, to this event that it both reaches above history and is founded and anchored in history".

The Crucifixion, the one-time death of Jesus, was an historical event, and so was the Resurrection, but the Resurrection did not end.  Christ is no longer dead, but He is still Resurrected. 

(09-03-2009, 05:26 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: [ -> ]Brothers and Sisters, please prepare yourselves for the next installment of Name That Cleric!

Ok, who is the cleric who wrote this:


"The Resurrection cannot be a[n] historical event in the same sense as [was] the Crucifixion ..." Yikes!

Did you guess who this was?

A cyber pat on the back for the soul who named:

http://infundelumencordibus.blogspot.com...leric.html

I find the way you call the Holy Father simply "Joseph Ratzinger" pretty disrespectful.

Your disdain of the Pope reminds me of some protestants views of the Pope. At least you have SOMEBODY who shares your views of our Pontiff.
How long, O Quis, how long?
(09-03-2009, 10:18 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]How long, O Quis, how long?

My question, too. Every single post so far has been a hook to get people to read his blog, which promotes sedevacantism or a thinly veiled promotion in the post itself.
Your time is about up, brother. 

[Image: hogan-hulk15.jpg]
(09-03-2009, 10:17 PM)Adonis33 Wrote: [ -> ]I find the way you call the Holy Father simply "Joseph Ratzinger" pretty disrespectful.

Your disdain of the Pope reminds me of some protestants views of the Pope. At least you have SOMEBODY who shares your views of our Pontiff.

Yes, but at least, even those prots know he's Pope, eh?!
Pages: 1 2