FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Most favourate pope since Vatican Ii - Pope Benedict XVI
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
According to a poll on this forum, Pope Benedict XVI is the favourite post Vatican II pope of most posters.

I wonder how many of them ever read his four Lenten homilies given in the Munich Cathedral in 1985 and then published in 1986, a book called IN THE BEGINNING still being sold with Cardinal Ratzinger as pope on its cover?

What Ratzinger tries to do is to reinterpret Genesis in a manner that complies with his beliefs that heliocentrism, Big Bang long ages and evolution of all, including man is true and must concord with Catholic theology.. It is Modernism personified, so much so that its inevitable conclusions deny the traditional understanding of Original Sin, the sin of Adam that resulted in Jesus Christ becoming man to redeem us by way of His death on the cross and the founding of his Church.

The skill with which the long held literal and traditional understanding of God's Creation, reflected in the dogma

‘If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.’ --- Vatican I (D. 1805) As St. Thomas says: Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles but it means that the composite is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles. (ST, I, Q 45, a 4, ad 2)

is twisted to comply with false human reasoning is a sight to behold:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzi...ionism.php

What does not appear in this selection is how his thinking reinvented what Original Sin is;

Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary command. (De fide.)
Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
Now I could go on with more dogmas, even those on baptism resulting directly from Original sin, and indeed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Now according to Cardinal Ratzinger's theology, never denied or retracted by him as pope, and still on sale for Catholics to read today, here is what he writes:

'In the Genesis story that we are all considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam... The account  tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are linked. Theology  refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term "Original Sin."

What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stronger or indeed more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one's relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberation God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean then, when we interpret it correctly?


He goes on to give us pages of invented modernist theology that portrays original sin as one of relationships with one another and a mumbo-jumbo of this and that in what is known as 'newspeak.'

Looking up my Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I read of heretics after heritics all trying to underrmine this revelation of Adam and Eve, the theology of Original Sin, resulting in the dogmas quoted above.

Interesting to see who is the favourite post Vatican II pope by posters on this forum.
(11-13-2017, 10:51 AM)cassini Wrote: [ -> ]According to a poll on this forum, Pope Benedict XVI is the favourite post Vatican II pope of most posters.

I wonder how many of them ever read his four Lenten homilies given in the Munich Cathedral in 1985 and then published in 1986, a book called IN THE BEGINNING still being sold with Cardinal Ratzinger as pope on its cover?

What Ratzinger tries to do is to reinterpret Genesis in a manner that complies with his beliefs that heliocentrism, Big Bang long ages and evolution of all, including man is true and must concord with Catholic theology.. It is Modernism personified, so much so that its inevitable conclusions deny the traditional understanding of Original Sin, the sin of Adam that resulted in Jesus Christ becoming man to redeem us by way of His death on the cross and the founding of his Church.

The skill with which the long held literal and traditional understanding of God's Creation, reflected in the dogma

‘If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.’ --- Vatican I (D. 1805) As St. Thomas says: Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles but it means that the composite is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles. (ST, I, Q 45, a 4, ad 2)

is twisted to comply with false human reasoning is a sight to behold:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzi...ionism.php

What does not appear in this selection is how his thinking reinvented what Original Sin is;

Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary command. (De fide.)
Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
Now I could go on with more dogmas, even those on baptism resulting directly from Original sin, and indeed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Now according to Cardinal Ratzinger's theology, never denied or retracted by him as pope, and still on sale for Catholics to read today, here is what he writes:

'In the Genesis story that we are all considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam... The account  tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are linked. Theology  refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term "Original Sin."

What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stronger or indeed more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one's relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberation God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean then, when we interpret it correctly?


He goes on to give us pages of invented modernist theology that portrays original sin as one of relationships with one another and a mumbo-jumbo of this and that in what is known as 'newspeak.'

Looking up my Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I read of heretics after heritics all trying to underrmine this revelation of Adam and Eve, the theology of Original Sin, resulting in the dogmas quoted above.

Interesting to see who is the favourite post Vatican II pope by posters on this forum.
Notice that I am not one of those posters.  His relativism regarding "exceptions" to the indissolubility of marriage, and his liberal interpretation of scripture (aka Francis'  "pastoral approach") are discussed here, especially from page 10 and going forward:
http://files.www.catholicethics.com/reso..._Wales.pdf

I could post more of his word games; I'm just far too busy at the moment.
I did say least bad.
With regard to the Big Bang, etc. I always liked this possible explanation put forth by St. Augustine.  In Book 6 of "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine Wrote: Wrote:There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.

I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man. It also is compatible with the Big Bang (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).

As for the original sin thing, you didn't provide the supposedly problematic part, so I went looking for it.  Unfortunately, I could just find snippets here and there in other books, but even better, I found where he gave the same explanation as Pope (at least as far as I can gather from the other snippets its the same). Honestly, I am not seeing where those de fide points are denied.  In the snippet you did provide, he does raise common objections, including the misconception that the guilt of original sin is the same as that of actual sin (even the Catechism of Trent distinguishes between "original guilt and actual guilt"--treating original sin like actual guilt would be like a child being sentenced for his father's crimes), and how it is just that we all must suffer for original sin. He then attempts to explain how that is so pointing to the relational nature of sin and human nature (I don't see how either of these can be denied). Anyway, here it is so others can make their own assessment.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-x...30206.html

Benedict XVI Wrote:I would like to highlight a final teaching in the accounts of the Creation; sin begets sin and all the sins of history are interconnected. This aspect impels us to speak of what is called “original sin”. What is the meaning of this reality that is not easy to understand? I would just like to suggest a few points. First of all we must consider that no human being is closed in on himself, no one can live solely for himself and by himself; we receive life from the other and not only at the moment of our birth but every day. Being human is a relationship: I am myself only in the “you” and through the “you”, in the relationship of love with the “you” of God and the “you” of others. Well, sin is the distortion or destruction of the relationship with God, this is its essence: it ruins the relationship with God, the fundamental relationship, by putting ourselves in God’s place.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that with the first sin man “chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good” (n. 398). Once the fundamental relationship is spoilt, the other relational poles are also jeopardized or destroyed: sin ruins relationships, thus it ruins everything, because we are relational. Now, if the relationship structure is disordered from the outset, every human being comes into a world marked by this relational distortion, comes into a world disturbed by sin, by which he or she is marked personally; the initial sin tarnishes and wounds human nature (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404-406). And by himself, on his own, man is unable to extricate himself from this situation, on his own he cannot redeem himself; only the Creator himself can right relationships. Only if he from who we distanced ourselves comes to us and lovingly holds out his hand can proper relationships be restored. This happens through Jesus Christ, who goes in exactly the opposite direction to Adam, as is described by the hymn in the second chapter of St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (2:5-11): whereas Adam did not acknowledge his creatural being and wanted to put himself in God’s place, Jesus, the Son of God, was in a perfect filial relationship with the Father, he emptied himself and became the servant, he took the path of love, humbling himself even to death on a cross, to set right our relations with God. The Cross of Christ thus became the new tree of life.
(11-13-2017, 12:43 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]With regard to the Big Bang, etc. I always liked this possible explanation put forth by St. Augustine.  In Book 6 of "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine Wrote: Wrote:There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.

I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man. It also is compatible with the Big Bang (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).

Let us first address your liking SaintSebastian of the Big Bang theory of creation rather than the direct creation of all 'in its entirity' as St Thomas taught. Here then is what you prefer is taught to Catholics. First the theory is scientifically absurd:

‘The problem is that fragments of an ordinary explosion don’t re-accumulate. Then why would matter [supposedly] formed in the greatest of all possible explosions ever reunite to form stars? In this scenario, how did supernova remnants from throughout the vast reaches of interstellar space re-accumulate to become the raw matter for the solar system? My [physics and] cosmology course never explained this any more than it explained how stars could develop from the Big Bang.'---Robert V. Gentry (DSc. Hon.): Creation’s Tiny Mystery.

There are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang theory.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
     My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s [and Cardinal Ratzinger's] words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ --- Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.


[1] 
(11-13-2017, 12:43 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
St. Augustine Wrote: Wrote:There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.

I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man. It also is compatible with the Big Bang (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).

'Two separate creation accounts of man?'

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:
Quote:There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]
Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc.