Benedict XVI, Modernism and the Resurrection
#31
(05-05-2011, 02:01 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 06:08 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(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?
The mistranslation part did not refer to this article, it referred to past sedevacantist smears of the Holy Father, when they deliberately mistranslated him.

I think you mean 'deliberately misinterpreted him,' which is indeed what the sedes behind this article have done. The English quotations of the chapter provided in the article are accurate translations of the original German text - this isn't a problem of translation.
Reply
#32
Here's my interpretation of the article and the words of Benedict quoted therein.  I suppose that we're all subject to bias, but I think that my stance is not to reject the truth even if the Holy Father fallibly says it is so, nor is it to hear heresy in every word of a post-conciliar pope just because he is post-conciliar.

On the topic of the resuscitation of a corpse, it appears that the Holy Father is not denying that Christ's body was actually resuscitated.  It appears that He is merely pointing out the fact that this isn't a simple resuscitation like that of Lazarus.  This isn't just a man returning to life where once there was death, and then ultimately returning back to death.  It is not a temporary lifting of death.  This is the ultimate defeat over Death, a defeat which creates a knew life for humanity in God, and which can be applicable to all men through Jesus Christ.  I will admit that this conclusion requires some reading through the lines, however, I am much more comfortable in assuming that Pope Benedict means this rather than a total rejection of the resuscitation of Christ's corpse.  There's no evidence for that in this text.  I will admit that his comparisons to Lazarus and other resurrections are somewhat ineffective as Christ is the only person to have ever brought Himself back to life, but, with the context we are given, I see no reason to believe that Benedict is rejecting the resuscitation.  He seems to merely be pointing out that the theological reality of the Resurrection is far deeper than the biological truth that we see on the surface.  Perhaps he could have said much more about how the biological reality is a sign of the spiritual reality shown above but, again, we only have a small selection of text.

On the topic of an evolutionary leap, I do wonder why the Holy Father would use such language.  The language itself appears to be novel and, as he even understands, "easily misunderstood".  It appears that he may be speaking, however, about an orthodox doctrine, that is that man himself is lifted up and capable of eternal life itself because of the Resurrection.  Again, it is hard to say with such limited context.  I think that this would be the best light that we could read the quote in, however, and yet one wonders why the Holy Father uses the language he does. 

We shouldn't be offended by His Holiness referring to the Resurrected Christ as one who had not returned to normal humanness but had "passed over into a new manner of human
existence."  The resurrected do exist in a radically new way, and yet Pope Benedict still affirms that He indeed still exists as a human.  This, however, seemingly contradicts with his later assertions that His essence is now light, or that the appearances of the Resurrected Lord can be compared to the theophanies of the Old Testament, both of which seem to imply an incorporeal Resurrected Christ.  The former claim is just confusing and, I don't think, can be used until one even understands what is being said.  The latter claim is troubling in that, and I may be wrong, it appears that the theophanies show Christ appearing to men as an angel of light.  Since this is before the Incarnation, the Son is not yet truly man.

When the Holy Father says that Christ "stands outside the laws of material existence," we may wonder what he is getting at.  If we want to say that the Resurrected Christ is, in a sense, supraphysical then I think we would still stand within the bounds of orthodoxy, however, it should also be affirmed quite clearly that He is indeed still a physical being, even if His being is not subject to all the laws of the material universe.  We, again, have such a short quotation here, but the language seems to depart from traditional theology of the Resurrected Christ.  It is unclear as to whether the actual theology is a departure as well.  I do find this troubling.

When Benedict says of Christ's Resurrection "that an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new
space of life, a new space of being in union with God,” I think we can affirm this if we are merely talking of the ontology as it relates to us human beings.  Of course Christ's divine nature is not changed and it seems to me that it would be tricky to say that His human nature radically changed as well, for it was already enjoying the beatific vision and joy during His life on earth.

“In this sense, it follows that the Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event.”  One may see that this passage is somewhat ambiguous, at least without any context.  Is the Holy Father saying that the Resurrection is a different kind of event because it affects all of humanity in an ontological way?  Perhaps.  But then are not the Incarnation and death of Christ also events that have affected what it means to be man as well?  The problem with statements like this are that they seem to leave open the idea that the Resurrection was not literal.  It should be emphasized that, even if the event itself is profoundly spiritual, this does not obliterate the fact that it is deeply and fundamentally physical and literal as well.



Perhaps this won't be a surprise to some, but there is just a lot of confusion by what the Holy Father is saying here.  I do not think that we can necessarily pin him down as espousing some kind of heresy in this text.  Nor can we pin him down as espousing some kind of novel theology.  It seems certainly true that novel language is being used, and for what purpose I will probably never know for certain, though we all have our own theories.  I think a better understanding can only be reached after reading the whole text, but even that may leave us with just as many questions.  At the end of the day I just have to admit that there is almost no way of knowing what exactly is being said here.  The clarity of language employed by the pre-Conciliar Church is woefully gone.  I'm just one man, but I have to wonder about, standing on its own, the true value of this text in the end.  If the theology is not novel then the language is needlessly cumbersome, ambiguous, and open to misinterpretation.  Teaching Christology has been done much better for hundreds of years and we should return to this scholastic model.  Obviously, if the underlying theology rejects orthodoxy then it has no value whatsoever and must be thrown into the cauldron immediately.

I'd advise everyone to press on.  It seems clear that a lot of us find learning from this text troubling and/or difficult.  If you want to study Christology then take a look at St. Thomas.  You can't go wrong there.  And that's really the spirit of true traditionalism.  We have no idea what the hell is going on right now.  We know there is a lot of error.  We also know there is a lot of ambiguity.  We hope that some of the ambiguity is simply the devil's attempt at confusion, and not outright untruth.  Either way, the only real answer is to weather the storm and hold onto traditionalism and Thomism until we can understand more.
Reply
#33
Walty, I think the confusion or ambiguity to which you refer is due to the fact that you are trying to mine a few isolated quotes for information outside the rest of the text in which they occur. The Holy Father explains himself thoroughly, but the OP's article only examines the isolated quotes in themselves. Any quotation, taken out of context, is difficult to interpret and can therefore be called 'ambiguous.' What I take umbrage to in the OP's article is that it makes no attempt to even attempt to contextualise the quotes within the rest of the text of that chapter, it simply takes them in isolation and then rages about their lack of clear and distinct meaning. The Holy Father isn't writing in analytic syllogisms: the chapter on the Resurrection needs to be read as a whole, or at least the quotes need to be read in the contexts of the sections in the chapter in which they occur, for the meaning to be plain and apparent.
Reply
#34
(05-05-2011, 06:17 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote: Walty, I think the confusion or ambiguity to which you refer is due to the fact that you are trying to mine a few isolated quotes for information outside the rest of the text in which they occur. The Holy Father explains himself thoroughly, but the OP's article only examines the isolated quotes in themselves. Any quotation, taken out of context, is difficult to interpret and can therefore be called 'ambiguous.' What I take umbrage to in the OP's article is that it makes no attempt to even attempt to contextualise the quotes within the rest of the text of that chapter, it simply takes them in isolation and then rages about their lack of clear and distinct meaning. The Holy Father isn't writing in analytic syllogisms: the chapter on the Resurrection needs to be read as a whole, or at least the quotes need to be read in the contexts of the sections in the chapter in which they occur, for the meaning to be plain and apparent.

I agree, but would also put a lot of money of the fact that I'd be left with as many questions as answers.  And I'm not sure how anyone reconciles the fact that such novel language is used at certain spots.
Reply
#35
(05-04-2011, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 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. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Give me a break!  I am not a sedevacantist and I was not violating forum rules!  The Holy Father himself (there, happy!?) signed his book, Jesus of Nazareth, as Joseph Ratzinger.  He did that for a reason, which he explains in his introduction to that book.  His reason is that it is the work of a private theologian and not of the Magisterium.  He even invites respectful criticism of his views, which he would obviously not do if he wrote a binding work of the Magisterium as Pope Benedict. 

The point I was trying to make was that Ratzinger writing as a "private theologian" ACCORDING TO BP. SANBORN'S INTERPRETATION, WHICH I EXPLICITLY DID NOT ENDORSE AS ACCURATE, appeared to explore novel and controversial interpretations of the Resurrection, including a charge of exaggeration and contradiction to St. Luke's gospel.  Then I quoted a statement on the Resurrection made by Pope Benedict speaking in a non-Magisterial but still official capacity as Pope which expressed the traditional understanding of the Resurrection.  There seemed to be some evidence, then, that Ratzinger (the Pope as private theologian) was exploring views in his book that he did not and would not express publicly as Pope Benedict (the Pope as Vicar of Christ).

If those observations violate the forum rules you quoted, then St. Paul was right that the letter kills!
Reply
#36
NorthernTrad, agree with me now or I am going home and taking my ball with me  :laughing:

Seriously though, Rasklinikov already gave a fine argument which only Walty has taken up with a serious debate.

Reply
#37
(05-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Pheo Wrote:
(05-04-2011, 10:30 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(05-04-2011, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 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. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Oh no!  The rules have been broken! Quickly, point it out to Quis before someone else does!   Seriously, these threads really do go down hill when people run out of arguments.

Were the rules even broken?  It sounds like the poster was trying to distinguish between him as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope Benedict.  Things would get a little clumsy if we couldn't make that distinction (back before Pope Benedict was Pope Benedict...?).

That is how I read the post. It was attempting to distinguish between the ex cathedra Pope Benedict, and the fallible man Joseph Ratzinger. Am I correct in saying that even if this book were chalk full of errors, it does not in any way constitute an error from the magesterium (ordinary or extraordinary) and thus CAN possibly contain errors of morality and theology. I think that with these non dogmatic Papal documents, the heretics take them as gospel and throw out all past teachings on the matters in error. In my opinion that is the real problem; people take non-dogmas as dogmas, and forget or throw out actual dogmas.
Reply
#38
(05-05-2011, 12:01 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: NorthernTrad, agree with me now or I am going home and taking my ball with me  :laughing:

I'll give you points for humor.  :laughing:
Reply
#39
At the risk of reviving an old thread--I don't think the article cited by the OP was fair to Joseph Ratzinger at all.

Although the criticism about how Ratzinger handles the Gospel of Luke was a point well taken.

Ratzinger's language is measured and nuanced because he is addressing philosophical issues of the past 150 years in a tempered and thought-provoking way. After all--the Resurrected Christ is walking on crucified feet, has a beating heart despite having a gaping wound in His side cased by a lance which had pierced Him to the Heart.


He has overcome death in His glorified Body, yet He is able to eat fish, obliging Him to take into Himself a piece of dead carrion which will presumably be broken down by action of stomach bacteria which ordinarily double in number in a human body exponentially, which ordinarily die off themselves and pass out of the body, etcetera. If Jesus' digestive processes are similar to those of unglorified humans, His very Body must interact with death simply to assimilate food. If His Body absorbs nutrition in some very different manner, then P.E. Benedict/Joseph Ratzinger's care in his words is justifiable.

I was on Fr. Cekadaa site collecting articles for my ongoing rhappened s on Sedevacantism. I happened upon a reference to the one in the OP, read it, and frankly found it very badly considered even before I used search engines to find this thread. Other critics in this thread echo my concerns with how Joseph Ratzinger's views were mishandled and probably misrepresented by the article. 
Reply
#40
It's somewhat ironic that this thread was "resuscitated". :) Sedevacantism is an ideology and needs constant maintenance so one can pretend it is viable although it is surely not.
But I was puzzled by your comment which seems garbled: "for my ongoing rhappened s on Sedevacantism" What did you mean?

C.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)