Rats? Ratz!
Everyone's talking about the new Bishop of Rome. I'm trying to ignore the buzz and go straight to the sources, so I've been reading some Ratzinger documents.
Just woke up this morning and read the declaration:
Dominus Iesus - On the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church
Ratzinger certainly qualifies what he writes so as not to be misinterpreted (though I'm sure that he still is), and there is much good in this document, but I still have problems.
Qualify it how you may, I can't accept a defense of language like this:
"The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source”.43 The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: “Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his”.44 Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."
Then again, who am I to question a document from the Vatican, given the seal of apostolic authority?
mea culpa
I'll be reading more Ratzinger in the days ahead.
Everyone's talking about the new Bishop of Rome. I'm trying to ignore the buzz and go straight to the sources, so I've been reading some Ratzinger documents.
Just woke up this morning and read the declaration:
Dominus Iesus - On the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church
Ratzinger certainly qualifies what he writes so as not to be misinterpreted (though I'm sure that he still is), and there is much good in this document, but I still have problems.
Qualify it how you may, I can't accept a defense of language like this:
"The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source”.43 The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: “Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his”.44 Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."
Then again, who am I to question a document from the Vatican, given the seal of apostolic authority?
mea culpa
I'll be reading more Ratzinger in the days ahead.
posted by trawlerman at 7:07 AM
1 Comments:
I should clarify immediately that my problem is mostly with the abuses that naturally flow from this sort of thinking, like hearing RC theologians say that Jews are saved by the covenant that they are now in, yada yada yada...
Qualified enough, I am still uncomfortable with the language, but I can accept the content. at least as far as unknowability of divine action.
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.23.05 - 7:50 am | #
I have a pretty good book called "Turmoil and Truth- The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church".
The following is from the beginning of the chapter on "The Church and Other Religions".
"There are two ways of looking at other religions. They can on the one hand be viewed as systems of belief claiming men's total allegience. In this respect they appear as rivals to Christianity and obstacles to its acceptance." (cont.)
Peter John | 04.23.05 - 11:30 pm | #
(cont.) "Or they can be seen as part of a general effort of the non-Christian world to make sense of life and the universe without the help of divine revelation, unless with some dim relics of the primitive revelation given to Adam, each attempt containing elements of truth embedded in a greater or lesser number of errors. From this standpoint, the elements of truth can be regarded as a preperation of the Gospel". (cont.)
Peter John | 04.23.05 - 11:34 pm | #
(cont.) "Both of the above ways of looking at other religions say something true about them. But with the Second Vatican Council, the Magesterium was persuaded to give pride of place to the second more sympathetic approach."
These two different ways of viewing other religions have always been found within the history of the Church (or even within Scripture, ie. the "unknown god"). Prior to VII, the former less "sympathetic" view was stresses more, following VII, the more sympathetic view has been stressed. There are dangers to overemphasizing one over the other, or excluding one over the other.
(cont.)
Peter John | 04.23.05 - 11:40 pm | #
Post-VII, the danger can tend to a "practical universalism" where all paths lead equally to God. I believe Dominus Iesus was primarily concerned with refuting this tendancy, and refuting "universalism" in all its forms while still retaining the more sympathetic view of other religions.
I think this document, when taken in its entirety, can not be seen even implicitly allowing for any form of universalism.
What do you think of the viewing of other religions not only as obstacles to salvation through Christ(which they are), but also as sincere attempt by others to understand the world around them being born outside of a Christian culture, and as a preperation for the Gospel in its fullness?
Peter John | 04.23.05 - 11:51 pm | #
I think next book I want to read of his is "The Spirit of the Liturgy".
I pray he will be able to help "reform the reform of the Liturgy" in the years ahead.
Peter John | 04.23.05 - 11:57 pm | #
Gravatar "What do you think of the viewing of other religions not only as obstacles to salvation through Christ(which they are), but also as sincere attempt by others to understand the world around them being born outside of a Christian culture, and as a preperation for the Gospel in its fullness?"
Yes, fine.
What I deny is that this sincere seeking can be salvific. Folks on EWTN/Catholic Answers, following Ratzinger, and quoting "Dominus Iesus" all of the time, want to say that yes, of course people can be "saved" outside of the Church, almost to the point where this pygmie has lived up to his light, this cannibal has lived up to his. The qualifications that I've heard are that the person in question reject the moral depravity surrounding them to the best of their ability (the light that has been given to them). This, then, becomes, an if-you're-good-enough salvation outside of the Church. (but of course, it's still not the wild man's works, it is the mediation of a rejected Christ that has saved this man)[
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.24.05 - 8:38 am | #
Gravatar [
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.24.05 - 8:39 am | #
Gravatar that last bit was sarcastic.
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.24.05 - 8:40 am | #
Gravatar And it has nothing to do with sincerity. The Aztecs were trying to figure out the world around them, and were sincere about human sacrifice. They lived by the "pre-Christian" light that was given to them.
Of course no one is really truly pre-Christian in the sense that most mean it, because since the fall of Adam, men have turned away from the triune god and sought their own, post-Christian gods. Just because the Ninevites or whoever had been stuck in their idol worship for hundreds and hundreds of years did not mean that they were okay. At one point in their history they had exchanged the truth of YHWH for a lie. This was not okay. They were expected to repent and turn to the god of Israel.
all unChristian societies have at one point in their history moved from Christian to post-Christian. There is no such thing as "pre-Christian" in terms of societal responsibility in accepting God's covenantal terms.
Enough for now, I think that I'm just rambling. and my breakfast is getting cold.
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.24.05 - 8:41 am | #
>>>"What I deny is that this sincere seeking can be salvific. Folks on EWTN/Catholic Answers, following Ratzinger, and quoting "Dominus Iesus" all of the time, want to say that yes, of course people can be "saved" outside of the Church, almost to the point where this pygmie has lived up to his light, this cannibal has lived up to his"
You probably listen to more EWTN than I do. If this is the case, than it is an imbalance of the teaching of the Church.
Romans 1 "For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."
I agree that neither sincerity, good intentions, nor "invincible ignorance" are salvific. Those who are saved will be saved only by the grace of Christ, and that is a mystery that I don't think we should presume a whole lot about.
I think we probably pretty much agree for the most part.
Peter John | 04.24.05 - 11:26 am | #
Post a Comment
<< Home