Pope Benedict XVI on the Church's Faith
Earlier today I was reading Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology when a fellow student commented on the book. I said I thought he was great and she responded "Well, if you join the one True Church you can blame it on Ratzinger." I said: "Yes, I can."
That interesting interchange reminded me of how much I appreciate Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as I have been devouring his works in the last few months. He is truly a theologian's theologian. More than his theological sharpness though is his pastoral sense and heart. His writing, even in his more technical work, is always geared to the Catholic family, his two Papal works are incredibly readable and his homilies are inspiring. Don't take my work for it, check out some for yourself.
Continuing my conversion process I thought I would share a part of an essay on "Tradition and Successio Apostolica found in the above mentioned text. Just as a sample of why the Catholic Church is so wonderful:
"I venture to close these reflections with a personal comment...Today, many Christians, myself included, experience a quiet uneasiness about attending divine services in a strange church; they are appalled at the thought of the half-understood theories, the amazing and tasteless personal opinions of this or that priest that they will have to endure during the homily - to say nothing of the personal liturgical inventions to which they will be subjected. No one goes to church to hear someone else's personal opinions. I am simply not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith. They may be appropriate for an evening's conversation but not for that obligation that brings me to church Sunday after Sunday. Anyone who preaches himself in this way overrates himself and attributes to himself an importance he does not have. When I go to church, it is not to find there my own or anyone else's innovations but what we have all received as the faith of the Church - the faith that spans the centuries and can support us all (283)."
I used to think that it would be great to be in the central pulpit of a Presbyterian church where FINALLY the true message and theology of Christianity could be preached! What arrogance! My journey to Rome has been in a large part due to the FACT of Rome, that it is the Church which has kept the faith (with some historical bumps along the way, of course) and is still keeping the faith today. No individual innovations without grinding through the machine that is the Roman curia. Roman Catholicism does not do innovation (on the whole, crazy priests and bishops exist, but then again, the Church is full of sinners, right?).
"To express that faith gives the words of even the poorest preacher the weight of centuries; to celebrate it in the liturgy of the Church makes it worthwhile to attend even the externally most unlikely liturgical service. Hence the substitution of one's own invention for the faith of the Church will always prove to be superficial, however intellectually or technically (seldom aesthetically) impressive this substitution may be (283)."
The beauty of the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that it is the Church, always has been the Church and always will be the Church. It requires no justification (unlike my entire Protestant life) and is bigger than anyone's imagination.
posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer @ 1:09 pm
9 comments
9 Comments:
Mr. Gadamer,
What was/is the main theological factor for your conversion?
PSP - thanks for dropping by! Main theological factor, eh? Tough question, especially since it shifts over time, I suppose. My first inclination would be to say:
1. Sacramental Theology - once you are willing to accept that there is more to the world than the visible, that there is a depth behind the world than Catholicism is the end point of your search for a true sacramental theology. Any stopping point along the way is individualistic dress-up, I think.
2. Ecclesiology - once you acknowledge that the visible Church matters than Catholicism is again your end point in the search for a visible communion of the body of Christ.
3. Personalism - although not strictly theological, I would put this one up in the top. Catholicism is about men and women, not ideas; about Christ, not the Bible. Whereas the first in each couplet are important (even essential) they always need to lead to the second. We are not Idealists or Bibliolaters; but Realists and Christians. Christ is a person, not a text.
That's what comes to mind first as of now, although I would probably change the list at some point. Hope that helps!
Very interesting stuff there. I'm tempted to say that the "faith of the Church" is really just the innovations and inventions of yesterday's individuals, but it seems like maybe you've anticipated that. Can you say a little bit more about this part: "No individual innovations without grinding through the machine that is the Roman curia"? Where does the "individual innovation" start? How is it submitted to the Roman Curia? It's not like any Priest can pick up form 103C (Sumission for Individual Innovations) that will then be considered and processed by the community of cardinals and the pope before being admitted as orthodoxy, is there?
Redness - well, not exactly form 103C, it is actually DD12.
To be honest, I don't think there is a form, but there is certainly a dynamic process for certina developments, revisions, and such in the Church. Cardinal Newman described the Church as three bodies: the Magesterium (bishops and cardinals), the Theologians, and the Laity (priests and faithful). Before a development is recognized by the Magesterium officially it must be recognized theologically by the Doctors of the Church and practically by the faithful of the Church. Obviously this works really slowly, which is great. A couple examples of the process:
1. de Lubac and Supernatural. At the turn of the century Catholicism was dominated in the schools by neo-scholasticism and the assertion of a "pure nature" and a graced nature. Henri de Lubac (most famously, followed by others) after spending much time reading the Church Fathers and Aquinas discovered that there never was a notion of "pure nature" proper to theology and so put out a book to revise this understanding. It was initially condemned and he was given a talking to, but by the time of the Vatican Council his work had proved correct and was accepted as the dominant understanding of nature and grace ("Man has a natural desire for the supernatural"). In this case it was the theologians who started the process which was recieved by the faithful and Magesterium.
3. Mary as co-redemptirx - there is a big push from some conservatives in the States for a papal declaration of Mary as "co-redemptrix" of "mediatrix", giving her role in salvation a little more "umph". So far this has not been received well by the Magesterium (they feel they have defined enough about Mary!) and so it is still in the grass roots stage (and likely to stay there!).
So the Catholic Church has a mechanism for revision and development of doctrine, but it is slow to wield this power, obviously, and usually by the time the Magesterium gets around to defining something it has already been pretty much universally accepted anyways (non-existence of limbo as a case in point: just declared null even though no one has believed it for a long time (if ever seriously!). This means that the faith is developed slowly but also wisely; not subject to whims of the times like other organizations.
Helpful?
Certainly - thanks for responding.
I think then that the bigger difference isn't that the Catholics have fewer individualists spouting "innovative" ideas, though this certainly may be true, but rather that they have a framework to condemn or encourage and control those innovations. An individual Catholic like Lubac might put out an innovation like any old protestant, and the remarkable difference about the Catholic church is that they can call him out in it and hopefully repress him if he's wrong. Joel Olsteen could still exist, but he wouldn't last nearly as long.
I don't deny that Protestants have a lot more of these "innovators", though, and that it can be problematic.
Mr. Gadamer,
Thanks for the response. Regarding point number one, my question is: You don't think that your comments apply to Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well? Regarding point number two, by "visible Church" I take it you mean a Church with "apostolic succession"?
Redness - yeah, I think you are right about the innovations. I mean, thinking is great and certain innovations are really important (if our knowledge of the world is growing, shouldn't our understanding of it theologically grow as well?). In some sense, all the classic doctrines of the Church (Trinity, two natures of Christ, etc.) were 'innovations', the question remains how to regulate between good and bad. The Catholic system is probably the best I can see (the only?), although of course it is a human and divine system, so a bit of mucking about it likely (limbo?).
I think you are right about the problematics of Protestantism's doctrinal freedom. The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on this issue seems to be in Catholicism an innovation is true if it is accepted by the Magesterium whereas in Protestantism an innovation is accepted if it founds a church.
PSP - hmmm...good question. I think point one does apply to Eastern Orthodoxy (even Rome recognizes that they have a valid sacramental line) but definitely not to Anglicanism. The 39 Articles are quite clear that no real presence is acceptable along the lines of transubstantiation or any high Sacramental theology. Anglo-Catholicism is the prime case of picking and choosing which parts of Catholicism you like (yes to mass, no to pope). Newman debunked the catholicism of Anglicanism a hundred years ago and now with women bishops finally coming through it is even more apparent that Anglicanism has no concern for a catholic bent except its own trimmed down version. Eastern Orthodoxy is in a different position as it has a valid sacrament and apostolic succession. The only thing it is missing is union with Rome through the Pope.
On the second point, apostolic succession is important to the visible Church, but I would make it a wider reference than that. It might collapse in point one that sacraments are effective, or it might just be a statement that cognitive belief is not enough to be a Christian. I think the main point is that the Church is physical and real, which works itself out in AS as well as Sacramental Theology, I suppose.
Magisterium, not Magesterium! Unbelievable! When did I write these things, 2am?
Post a Comment
<< Home