Benedict XVI, Modernism and the Resurrection
#1
New article on www.traditionalmass.org

Modernism Resurrected: Benedict XVI on the Resurrection.
by Most. Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...ResArt.pdf

The Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

•  Not the resuscitation of a corpse.
•  An "evolutionary" leap.
•  Not a historical event like Our Lord's birth or crucifixion.
•  St. Luke "contradicts" himself about one of Our Lord's appearances.

Does this sound like the traditional Catholic understanding of what the dogma of the Resurrection means?

Read Bishop Sanborn's analysis of how Benedict XVI's new book Jesus of Nazareth resurrects modernist teachings condemned by St. Pius X.

(Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, April 2011)
Reply
#2
The erudite lectures and writing of Cekada and Sanborn are amongst my favorite.  Insightful, authoritative, well founded in facts, and wonderfully constructed from a forensic perspective, I recommend their lectures to any serious Christian inquisitor.

Although I obviously disagree with some of Sanborn’s positions on the events of 1054 A.D. and Apostolicae Curae, one cannot help to admire the power of logical articulation.

I have downloaded dozens of hours of Sanborn’s lectures, and listen to them on long journeys.  If I were king, I would make his lectures mandatory for all Catholics (even those pesky “schismatics” as he likes to label us (and himself if one reduces the argument to a sufficient level)).

But then, I live at 9,000 feet where the air is thin, and it snows in mid June, so what would I know, eh?

Caoimhín
Reply
#3
Thank you very much for showing us this article, Fr. Cekada.  May God bless you!

:pray:
Reply
#4
Pope Benedict's television interview contained this:

Quote:Q. The next question is also on the theme of Resurrection and comes from Italy. "Your Holiness, when the women reach the tomb on the Sunday after Jesus' death, they do not recognize their Master but confuse him with another. It also happens to the apostles: Jesus shows them his wounds, breaks bread, in order to be recognized, precisely by his actions. He has a true body, made of flesh, but it is also glorified. What does it mean that His risen body didn't have the same characteristics as before? What, exactly, does a glorified body mean? Will the Resurrection also be like that for us?"

A. Naturally, we cannot define the glorified body because it is beyond our experience. We can only note the signs that Jesus has given us to understand, at least a little, in which direction we should seek this reality. The first sign: the tomb is empty. That is, Jesus dead not leave his body behind to corruption. This shows us that even matter is destined for eternity, that it is truly resurrected, that it does not remain something lost. But he then assumed this matter in a new condition of life. This is the second point: Jesus no longer dies, that is, He is beyond the laws of biology and physics because He endured this one death. Therefore there is a new condition, a different one, that we do not know but which is shown in the fact of Jesus and which is a great promise for all of us: that there is a new world, a new life, toward which we are on a journey. Being in this condition, Jesus had the possibility of letting himself be felt, of offering his hand to his followers, of eating with them, but still of being beyond the conditions of biological life as we live it. We know that, on the one hand, He is a real man, not a ghost, that he lives a real life, but a new life that is no longer submitted to the death that is our great promise. It is important to understand this, at least as much as we can, for the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the Lord gives us His glorified body, not flesh to eat in a biological sense. He gives us Himself, this newness that He is in our humanity, in our being as person, and it touches us within with His being so that we might let ourselves be penetrated by His presence, transformed in His presence. It is an important point because we are thus already in contact with this new life, this new type of life, since He has entered into me and I have gone out of myself and am extended toward a new dimension of life. I think that this aspect of the promise, of the reality that He gives Himself to me and pulls me out of myself, toward on high, is the most important point. It is not about noting things that we cannot understand but of being on a journey to the newness that always begins again anew in the Eucharist.

This response is an uncontroversial reflection on the resurrection of the body.  It sounds different from the views Bp. Sanborn attributes to Ratzinger in the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth.  So either:

1) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body; or

2) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis is correct, and Ratzinger does contradict the traditional dogma BUT Pope Benedict expresses the traditional dogma. 

I have not read Jesus of Nazareth myself.  However, I did find it striking that in that book Ratzinger says Luke exaggerated in portraying Jesus as eating fish, but that Pope Benedict in the response above highlighted the fact that Jesus displayed his physicality in eating with his disciples after the Resurrection. 

Again, I am relying on Bishop Sanborn's quotations, but it appears that Ratzinger is not identical to Pope Benedict. 
Reply
#5
I'm not surprised at your reaction.

A modernist, St. Pius X pointed out, can sound like an orthodox Catholic one minute, while sounding like a complete rationalist the next. He sometimes retains the standard terms of Catholic dogmatic formulations but guts them of their real sense.

The modernist's language is often purposely obscure and convoluted. He shies away from the precision of expression found in scholastic (i.e. Catholic) theology. He sometimes drops hints praising hereterdox theologians and their teachings — Ratzinger (both before and after his election) has done this repeatedly, by the way, with the archmodernist and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin.

This is all part of the modernist shtick. The beauty of it is the mixed signals it gives: Catholics who want to believe as before hear some of the familiar terms; meanwhile, doctrinal revolutionaries use the hints and winks as openings to further the next stage of dogmatic evolution. The old explanation about [fill in the blank for the dogma], while true in its day, has now been "surpassed," and our understanding has moved on to a new "substantial anchorage" (as Ratzinger said in his document revoking the condemnations of the errors of Rosimini).

The modernists' goal from the beginning has been to make the faith "palatable" to the naturalist, rationalist, skeptical and God- hating thought systems of the modern world.

So, a modernist tries to find away around the notion of Christ's soul returning to His body and revivifying His corpse, and substitutes instead an "evolutionary leap" and "experience." What rationalist would deny evolution or experience? But in the process the modernist gives the dogma another sense, a meaning alien to the one the Church has always given the dogma.

We (by this I mean older trad clergy like myself and Bishop Sanborn) saw this method at work up close in the seminaries we attended in the post-V2 era. The Resurrection was a favorite target. And my modernist professors adoringly mentioned Ratzinger in the same breath as Rahner, Congar and the rest of the gang, so the errors Bishop Sanborn finds in the Ratzinger/B16 works are no suprise to me.

You may want to write Bishop Sanborn with your questions. Perhaps if he gets a number of good questions he will devote another article to answering them. The Resurrection is not exactly an insignificant issue.

If you PM me, I can send you Bp. Sanborn's e-mail, or you can find it on the seminary section of the tradtionalmass.org site.

A blessed Easter to you — with hopes that all modernists will go take an evolutionary leap.
Reply
#6
(04-22-2011, 10:04 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: A modernist, St. Pius X pointed out, can sound like an orthodox Catholic one minute, while sounding like a complete rationalist the next. He sometimes retains the standard terms of Catholic dogmatic formulations but guts them of their real sense.
Heretics are a tricky bunch, that is for sure. Those who deny the teachings of the Church, established by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost until the end, are always present, preying on the faithful to lead them away from the Church and to destruction.

We should always be on our guard to avoid being seduced by the lies of heretics and their ideas.

Quote:The modernist's language is often purposely obscure and convoluted. He shies away from the precision of expression found in scholastic (i.e. Catholic) theology. He sometimes drops hints praising hereterdox theologians and their teachings — Ratzinger (both before and after his election) has done this repeatedly, by the way, with the archmodernist and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin.
Is the man you accuse a timeless entity or a human?

Quote:So, a modernist tries to find away around the notion of Christ's soul returning to His body and revivifying His corpse, and substitutes instead an "evolutionary leap" and "experience." What rationalist would deny evolution or experience? But in the process the modernist gives the dogma another sense, a meaning alien to the one the Church has always given the dogma.
Writing about something which we do not fully understand is always tricky. How can one write of the Trinity, of the Resurrection, and of the Eucharist without using words which could be misinterpreted?

The Resurrection is not enhanced CPR. It is something we cannot understand fully.

Quote:A blessed Easter to you — with hopes that all modernists will go take an evolutionary leap.

I'd pray for their return to truth.
Reply
#7
Quote:Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body

This.  Sanborn selectively quotes Benedict to make him seem to argue that which his is actually arguing against.  As Benedict states "the Christian Faith stands or falls with the truth of the testimony that Christ is risen from the dead.  If this were taken away, it would still be possible to piece together from the Christian tradition a series of interesting ideas about God and men, about man's being and his obligations, a kind if religious world view: but the Christian faith would be dead. (p. 241).

Regarding the "evolutionary leap" Benedict admits this is an analogy that "is easily misunderstood. (p. 244)" Benedict argues that Christ's resurrection is totally different from anything that has ever happened before, especially when one considers that Jesus had already raised Lazareth from the dead.  In particular Benedict stresses that the evangelists stress that the risen Christ was fully corporeal, but also seemingly no longer constrained by the laws of nature.  So Thomas could feel Christ's wound, but at the same time Jesus can walk through walls.  Benedict stresses there is something very different about the way the evangelists describe the risen Christ compared to anything that had come before it.  Christ is clearly stated not to be a ghost, but nor is he like Lazereth who also came back from the dead. 

As Benedict states "the paradox was indescribable.  He was quite different, no mere resuscitated corpse, but one living anew and forever in the power of God. And yet at the same time, while no longer belonging to our world, he was truly present there, he himself.  It was an utterly unique experience which burst open the normal boundaries of experience and yet for the disciples was quite beyond doubt.  This explains the unique character of the Resurrection accounts: they speak of something paradoxical, of something that surpasses all experience and yet is utterly real and present," (p. 246).

Furthermore, "theological speculation arguing that Jesus' decomposition and Resurrection could be mutually compatible belong to modern thinking and stand in clear contradiction to the biblical vision." (p. 257).
Reply
#8
The day that people will stop believing the sedevacantist cult-leaders and start reading the sources themselves will be the day they stop being sedevacantists.

How many times do they have to mistranslate the pope and quote him out of context before people stop buying into their lies?
Reply
#9
Taking everyone at their word, presents some alternative explanations.  If we look at Pope Benedict's response, as presented by the poster Credo, what I see is a squirming response so full of qualifiers as to allow virtually any interpretation as one may want ot extract.

Pope Benedict's reported response was far from clear, far from concise, far from definitive; far from a clear contradiction to the argument that Pope Benedict denies the resurrection of the body.

Did Ratzinger in his book “Introduction to Christianity” write: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies.”?

Reportedly, regarding the biblical references to the restoration of bodies, Ratzinger continued with:  “Their essential content is not the conception of the restoration of bodies to souls, after a long interval.”  Did Ratzinger actually write this? Just "yes" or "no." 

If "yes" then this seems clear enough – spoken with far greater clarity than the recent response given on TV.

Did Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, Italy deny The Resurrection of Jesus’ body, as claimed by Sanborn?  Did Ratzinger, knowing Forte’s position, consecrate him anyway?  If so, why?

I’m trained in the detection of deception in the spoken and written word.  Pope Benedict's reported response was consistent with one avoiding speaking with definition.  This is not to say the Pope lied – this is to say the Pope's reported response was consistent with one avoiding speaking the truth. 

Thus far, in the totality of the given circumstances, it would appear that Sanborn’s positions have more credibility than the counter-argument. 

Indeed, the counter argument is more frequently the empty, shallow, vacuous responses as displayed by the poster “Fudentaumel” which are more verbal diarrhea than argument.

But then, that’s just me – and I choose to live in a place where it snows in mid summer, (in fact, it’s snowing right now) – so what would I know,eh?

Caoimhín P. Connell
Reply
#10
(04-23-2011, 02:57 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote: The day that people will stop believing the sedevacantist cult-leaders and start reading the sources themselves will be the day they stop being sedevacantists.

How many times do they have to mistranslate the pope and quote him out of context before people stop buying into their lies?

Funny... the day I stopped listening to Novus Ordites and started reading sources themselves was the day I became a sedevacantist.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)