Benedict XVI, Modernism and the Resurrection
#11
This article is ridiculous, and the author clearly makes no attempt to understand what the Holy Father is saying at all. The quotations listed in the article are completely out of context. Rather than get a false impression from this article, read the book yourselves and see that the Holy Father has not only defended the orthodox Catholic faith on a powerful and stirring intellectual level, but that he has also related the philosophical significance of Christ's resurrection with the nature of human and cosmic reality in a profound and insightful manner. The 'evolutionary leap' which he speaks of is the emergence of humanity into a new level of existence through the glorification of Christ in his post-Resurrectional form and the implications this has for the rest of humanity and the universe. He isn't talking about biological evolution or the evolution of doctrine; he's talking about the transformation - 'glorification,' even - of reality-in-itself.

I've read the book in question, and it is not at all heterodox. The Holy Father cleverly responds to plenty of modernist heresies, particularly Bultmann's so-called 'existential' theology which seeks to interpret the Resurrection as a merely spiritual (and metaphorical) event within the hearts and minds of the believers. Pope Benedict XVI argues plainly and strongly for the literal truth of the resurrection. He makes the (very important) distinction between a simply resuscitated corpse (such as Lazarus, who returns to his natural previous biological life and dies a natural death later) and the new reality which Christ brings into our midst - glorification. The Risen Christ was gloried - not a zombie (i.e., a decayed corpose which was simply re-animated in a strictly biological sense), but a perfected and glorified being, an entirely new ontological reality beyond the realm of ordinary human experience and perception. I really recommend that chapter of the Pope's new book to anyone, even non-Catholics and atheists. It certainly helps to make sense of the Gospel accounts of the Risen Christ, which can be confusing at first.

Really though, I wonder if the author of the article which the OP provided had approached Pope Benedict's book with false and prejudiced presuppositions and then sought to find every quote which he could possibly misconstrue to make the Pope seem heterodox or modernist. Pope Benedict is niether.
Reply
#12
"Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.
Reply
#13
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.
Reply
#14
(04-30-2011, 08:43 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.

The language of Modernists (as St. Pius X pointed out and as my personal experience with Modernist professors repeatedly confirmed), is purposely obscure and designedly contradictory. Catholic on one page, rationalist on the next.

The reason for this mode of expression it to camouflage what the Modernist author is "actually saying."  That way, people like yourself will be taken in by the "traditional"-sounding stuff. Meanwhile, fellow Modernists (who understand the code) can sail along to the next "substantial anchorage" in the Modernist Carnival Cruise ship Dogmatic Evolution.

It was virtually impossible to get away with obscurity like this in standard, pre-V2 scholastic theology, which prided itself on its clarity. But the young Ratzinger rejected the  paradigm — one admirer (Fergus Kerr, as I recall) called him the "first non-Thomist elected to the Chair of Peter" since the Middle Ages.

So, if you think his theological writing is orthodox, well, (a) you can have it, and (b) you're fooling yourself.

To me, figuring out what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI  "actually" says (apart from the Modernist code words) is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Reply
#15
(04-30-2011, 05:30 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(04-30-2011, 08:43 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.

The language of Modernists (as St. Pius X pointed out and as my personal experience with Modernist professors repeatedly confirmed), is purposely obscure and designedly contradictory. Catholic on one page, rationalist on the next.

The reason for this mode of expression it to camouflage what the Modernist author is "actually saying."  That way, people like yourself will be taken in by the "traditional"-sounding stuff. Meanwhile, fellow Modernists (who understand the code) can sail along to the next "substantial anchorage" in the Modernist Carnival Cruise ship Dogmatic Evolution.

It was virtually impossible to get away with obscurity like this in standard, pre-V2 scholastic theology, which prided itself on its clarity. But the young Ratzinger rejected the  paradigm — one admirer (Fergus Kerr, as I recall) called him the "first non-Thomist elected to the Chair of Peter" since the Middle Ages.

So, if you think his theological writing is orthodox, well, (a) you can have it, and (b) you're fooling yourself.

To me, figuring out what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI  "actually" says (apart from the Modernist code words) is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

You didn't address any of the points that Raskolnikov made in his original post, Father.
Reply
#16
(04-30-2011, 05:30 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(04-30-2011, 08:43 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.

The language of Modernists (as St. Pius X pointed out and as my personal experience with Modernist professors repeatedly confirmed), is purposely obscure and designedly contradictory. Catholic on one page, rationalist on the next.

The reason for this mode of expression it to camouflage what the Modernist author is "actually saying."  That way, people like yourself will be taken in by the "traditional"-sounding stuff. Meanwhile, fellow Modernists (who understand the code) can sail along to the next "substantial anchorage" in the Modernist Carnival Cruise ship Dogmatic Evolution.

It was virtually impossible to get away with obscurity like this in standard, pre-V2 scholastic theology, which prided itself on its clarity. But the young Ratzinger rejected the  paradigm — one admirer (Fergus Kerr, as I recall) called him the "first non-Thomist elected to the Chair of Peter" since the Middle Ages.

So, if you think his theological writing is orthodox, well, (a) you can have it, and (b) you're fooling yourself.

To me, figuring out what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI  "actually" says (apart from the Modernist code words) is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Pardon me, Father, but have you actually read the book?

It's one thing to bash Stephanie Meyer's Twilight without reading it - but to insult and defame the Holy Father's work without even reading it is something else entirely.
Reply
#17
(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?

No mistranslation. The quotes are from the English edition! Perhaps you don't speak English?
Reply
#18
(05-01-2011, 07:36 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote: Pardon me, Father, but have you actually read the book?

His sections on the Resurrection, yes.

This is the first place I look in any Modernist work — a "litmus test," as it were.

If an author's treatment of the Resurrection smacks of heterodoxy, any other "insights" he may have on Catholic doctrine are rendered pointless — because without the Resurrection, vana est fides nostra, and  vana est fides ejus.
Reply
#19
(04-30-2011, 08:43 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.

What the Benedict was getting at is that Jesus' resurrection was very different compared to anything else that had happened before...and anything that has happened since.  He especially stresses that Lazarus was raised from the dead (and this was importantly the last thing Jesus did before entering Jerusalem) , but that Christ's resurrection is fundamentally different.  The resurrection of Lazarus did not change the world, the resurrection of Christ did.  One could eliminate the account of Lazarus and the faith would largely be unaffected (I am not encouraging you to do this!), remove the resurrection of Christ and the faith collapses. 

On good Friday I heard someone say that that Jesus didn't die. He had passed out and people assumed he died and buried him.  Three days later he woke up and people thought he had come back to the dead.  It is this modern and relativistic approach that Benedict is arguing against! I can't believe anyone who claims to be Catholic could read Benedict's book and claim he is trying to deny the resurrection when he is in fact condemning people that deny it!
Reply
#20
(05-01-2011, 07:03 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(04-30-2011, 08:43 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(04-29-2011, 10:36 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us.
For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors.”


This isn't heretical, but it is just plain retarded.  The whole idea is that Jesus gave Himself back His own life, proving that He is the very Author of life.  I've never seen a dead doctor resuscitate himself.

Read the book in question, and my post above. The only thing that is 'plain retarded' about this whole issue is deliberately taking statements out of context and attempting to misconstrue them as something they're not, whilst simultaneously completely failing to understand (or not even bothering to investigate) what the Holy Father was actually saying.

What the Benedict was getting at is that Jesus' resurrection was very different compared to anything else that had happened before...and anything that has happened before.  He especially stresses that Lazarus was raised from the dead (and this was importantly the last thing Jesus did before entering Jerusalem) , but that Christ's resurrection is fundamentally different.  The resurrection of Lazarus did not change the world, the resurrection of Christ did.  One could eliminate the account of Lazarus and the faith would largely be unaffected (I am not encouraging you to do this!, remove the resurrection of Christ and the faith collapses. 

On good Friday I heard someone say that that Jesus didn't die. He had passed out and people assumed he died and buried him.  Three days he woke up and people thought he had come back to the dead.  It is this modern and relativistic approach that Benedict is arguing against! I can't believe anyone who claims to be Catholic could read Benedict's book and claim he is trying to deny the resurrection when he is in fact condemning people that deny it!

This.

Thank you, Someone1776.

Pope Benedict's book, and the chapter in question, are really not that hard to understand. His meaning is plain and unambiguous if you actually put some effort into reading the chapter (rather than just taking sentences out of context, as your article does). None of it can be disputed from the perspective of orthodox Catholic theology. If you think the chapter is heterodox then either a) you are wrong about the fundamentals of the Catholic faith, or b) you lack sufficient reading and comprehension skills, or c) you are obsessed with some sedevacantist conspiracy theory and are determined to interpret everything about BXVI in a manner which supports your beliefs.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)