FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Consider the title of this thread:
 
What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration

Could we focus instead more on the further question:

  Is What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration GOOD?

This time forget about criticising/arguing about the awful translation repeated in the first post and the dishonesty of those who made it.  Consider instead the meaning of the Pope's words as presented in the alternate translation.  Does it help or hinder our understanding of Eucharistic adoration?   

"Ratzinger" Wrote:With regard to meaningfulness, Eucharistic adoration, or silent visits ot the Eucharist in Church, cannot just be a conversation with the God thought to be present in a locally circumscribed way. Statements like 'God lives here', and conversations with the God thought to be locally present on the basis of such statements, express a disregard, for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence. If one were to justify going to church by arguing that one ought to visit the God who is present only there, then this would indeed be an argument that made no sense and that would be rightly rejected by modern man.

Here is some confusion that Ratzinger's words could cause:

If a child asks his mother "What is in that pretty gold box" and she answers "That is called the tabernacle - Jesus lives there, talk to Him!", is she "expressing a disregard for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence'.  Or is she teaching the child to show such disregard?    Suppose she really is not thinking about God's omnipresence as she adores Jesus within her; but rather about God's omnipotence in Jesus who is precisely right there within her. Is her "conversation with God thought to be locally circumscribed [precisely right there]" inadequate? Must she consider all of God's attributes when she converses with God?  Must she be belittled as not being among "modern, thinking people" who really know about God's omnipresence? What about when she rushes to church after work to visit Jesus who is there - possibly only there, sacramentally, in a small city in these modern times? 

You may say, oh no, you misunderstand Ratzinger!  But can't what he says be easily TAKEN this way?  I don't know how one can get away from that.

What does a modern man get out of this? Praise (just what he needs) if he knows about God's omnipresence. Not the Real Presence. Ratzinger doesn't deny it here but He minimizes it. 

Maybe Ratzinger elsewhere does talk about the Real Presence.  But  this paragraph seems at best misleading. 
I think it could lead people astray from true Catholic devotion.  To put it mildly,  I don't think an entire paragraph should do that, even if it is out of context from Ratzinger's whole work.
.
(09-24-2011, 12:56 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard,

You are embarrassing yourself.

Maybe, maybe not.  But it's irrelevant whether I am truly embarassing myself or whether you are reduced to ridicule because you can't answer questions put to you.  Your statement doesn't  answer the questions, that is what is important.  It serves no valuable purpose in the discussion but to make you feel better about yourself by running me down. 

Quote: Do you know the difference between divine providence and divine revelation?

Yes.  Do you know the difference between contingency and necessity? 

Quote: Do you think the text of the Roman Missal - and, indeed, the collect for the Feast of St Pius V - borders on violation of the First Commandment?

No. ??? How do you put that together?  The fact that reading those prayers in the English translation (perhaps in the Latin, I'm not a scholar of Latin) presents a possible theological problem from the Catholic point of view or perhaps a semantical problem which can easily be resolved, has nothing to do with your extrapolation that God actually positively elects every Pope and bishop in the Church.  I'm going to have to assume that's what you believe since you don't have the courtesy to answer any direct questions when that courtesy is given to you. 


Quote: Do you, in short, have any idea what you're talking about?


Yes.  I do.  The burning question is....do you?  If so, why do you refuse to show it?
(09-24-2011, 09:02 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Consider the title of this thread:
 
What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration

Could we focus instead more on the further question:

  Is What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration GOOD?

This time forget about criticising/arguing about the awful translation repeated in the first post and the dishonesty of those who made it.  Consider instead the meaning of the Pope's words as presented in the alternate translation.  Does it help or hinder our understanding of Eucharistic adoration?   

"Ratzinger" Wrote:With regard to meaningfulness, Eucharistic adoration, or silent visits ot the Eucharist in Church, cannot just be a conversation with the God thought to be present in a locally circumscribed way. Statements like 'God lives here', and conversations with the God thought to be locally present on the basis of such statements, express a disregard, for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence. If one were to justify going to church by arguing that one ought to visit the God who is present only there, then this would indeed be an argument that made no sense and that would be rightly rejected by modern man.

Here is some confusion that Ratzinger's words could cause:

If a child asks his mother "What is in that pretty gold box" and she answers "That is called the tabernacle - Jesus lives there, talk to Him!", is she "expressing a disregard for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence'.  Or is she teaching the child to show such disregard?    Suppose she really is not thinking about God's omnipresence as she adores Jesus within her; but rather about God's omnipotence in Jesus who is precisely right there within her. Is her "conversation with God thought to be locally circumscribed [precisely right there]" inadequate? Must she consider all of God's attributes when she converses with God?  Must she be belittled as not being among "modern, thinking people" who really know about God's omnipresence? What about when she rushes to church after work to visit Jesus who is there - possibly only there, sacramentally, in a small city in these modern times? 

You may say, oh no, you misunderstand Ratzinger!  But can't what he says be easily TAKEN this way?  I don't know how one can get away from that.

What does a modern man get out of this? Praise (just what he needs) if he knows about God's omnipresence. Not the Real Presence. Ratzinger doesn't deny it here but He minimizes it. 

Maybe Ratzinger elsewhere does talk about the Real Presence.  But  this paragraph seems at best misleading. 
I think it could lead people astray from true Catholic devotion.  To put it mildly,  I don't think an entire paragraph should do that, even if it is out of context from Ratzinger's whole work.
.

Any responses to this?
(09-26-2011, 06:43 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 09:02 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Consider the title of this thread:
 
What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration

Could we focus instead more on the further question:

  Is What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration GOOD?

This time forget about criticising/arguing about the awful translation repeated in the first post and the dishonesty of those who made it.  Consider instead the meaning of the Pope's words as presented in the alternate translation.  Does it help or hinder our understanding of Eucharistic adoration?   

"Ratzinger" Wrote:With regard to meaningfulness, Eucharistic adoration, or silent visits ot the Eucharist in Church, cannot just be a conversation with the God thought to be present in a locally circumscribed way. Statements like 'God lives here', and conversations with the God thought to be locally present on the basis of such statements, express a disregard, for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence. If one were to justify going to church by arguing that one ought to visit the God who is present only there, then this would indeed be an argument that made no sense and that would be rightly rejected by modern man.

Here is some confusion that Ratzinger's words could cause:

If a child asks his mother "What is in that pretty gold box" and she answers "That is called the tabernacle - Jesus lives there, talk to Him!", is she "expressing a disregard for both the Christological mystery and the concept of God, that is off-putting to thinking people who know about God's omnipresence'.  Or is she teaching the child to show such disregard?    Suppose she really is not thinking about God's omnipresence as she adores Jesus within her; but rather about God's omnipotence in Jesus who is precisely right there within her. Is her "conversation with God thought to be locally circumscribed [precisely right there]" inadequate? Must she consider all of God's attributes when she converses with God?  Must she be belittled as not being among "modern, thinking people" who really know about God's omnipresence? What about when she rushes to church after work to visit Jesus who is there - possibly only there, sacramentally, in a small city in these modern times? 

You may say, oh no, you misunderstand Ratzinger!  But can't what he says be easily TAKEN this way?  I don't know how one can get away from that.

What does a modern man get out of this? Praise (just what he needs) if he knows about God's omnipresence. Not the Real Presence. Ratzinger doesn't deny it here but He minimizes it. 

Maybe Ratzinger elsewhere does talk about the Real Presence.  But  this paragraph seems at best misleading. 
I think it could lead people astray from true Catholic devotion.  To put it mildly,  I don't think an entire paragraph should do that, even if it is out of context from Ratzinger's whole work.
.

Any responses to this?

I fully agree with the post.  His holiness often tends to use extremely...subtle phrasings on important and relatively simple dogmas of the Church.  In latin terms, foundational even.  He talks like a philosopher, which is not "bad".  But in this case, as in others, the Church needs a man who tells it like it is.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9