Need help regarding Pope Benedict

[Open Heart]

A Sedevacantist has brought up some objections regarding Pope Benedict on another forum, and I'm not sure how to answer. He has claimed that the Pope Emeritus does not believe in the bodily resurrection, and in one document has wrongly taught Consubstantiation. I have always thought of the Pope Emeritus as a "This is orthodox Catholicism" kind of guy that I could trust to teach it straight. Please help me!

Although I'll post the pertinent posts here, the original document is at Modernist deniers of Christ's Resurrection! - Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums .

He bases his claim that the Pope Emeritus doesn't believe in Christ's physical resurrection on the following documents:

"The sentence ‘Jesus has risen’ thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded. With this statement we seem to be again at the heart of the conflict with which we started, since the Resurrection is understood by one group as a historical event and as part of the long line of salvation history but by the other as the eschatological event that transcends all history." (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology[San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 184).

“It now also becomes clear that the real heart of faith in resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible. What then is the content of the hope symbolically proclaimed in the Bible in the shape of the resurrection of the dead? (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1970], p. 270-271).


He bases his claim that the Pope Emeritus taught Consubstantiation (although he seems to concede that it was only on this occasion) in this encyclical:
Deus caritas est, #13:"Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna."

 

[zippy2006]

A Sedevacantist has brought up some objections regarding Pope Benedict on another forum, and I'm not sure how to answer.

He sounds like someone who has a grudge against Benedict XVI, because it is a big stretch to go from any of these writings to the conclusions he claims follow from them.

"The sentence ‘Jesus has risen’ thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded. With this statement we seem to be again at the heart of the conflict with which we started, since the Resurrection is understood by one group as a historical event and as part of the long line of salvation history but by the other as the eschatological event that transcends all history."

(Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology[San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 184).

"One group sees the resurrection as a historical event, and another sees it as an eschatological event transcending history, therefore Ratzinger doesn't believe in Jesus' physical resurrection."

Although I am not familiar with this book, the argument makes no sense. All Ratzinger has done in the passage is compare two competing views. He hasn't even taken a side himself!

“It now also becomes clear that the real heart of faith in resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible. What then is the content of the hope symbolically proclaimed in the Bible in the shape of the resurrection of the dead? (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1970], p. 270-271).

Although I am familiar with this book, I have the Ignatius Press edition and thus cannot find the quote. In any case, Ratzinger is presumably saying that the new body is not merely resuscitated or restored (like Lazarus), but is resurrected as the firstfruits of the new creation. (Again, the passage is simply insufficient for the conclusion the person wishes to draw. What is supposed to be problematic about it?)

He bases his claim that the Pope Emeritus taught Consubstantiation (although he seems to concede that it was only on this occasion) in this encyclical:
Deus caritas est, #13:"Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna."

If this makes Ratzinger a consubstantialist then Jesus himself was a consubstantialist, for after speaking the words of institution Jesus goes on to say, "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom" (Matthew 26:29, Cf. Mark 14:25).

 

[pdudgeon]

A Sedevacantist has brought up some objections regarding Pope Benedict on another forum, and I'm not sure how to answer. He has claimed that the Pope Emeritus does not believe in the bodily resurrection, and in one document has wrongly taught Consubstantiation. I have always thought of the Pope Emeritus as a "This is orthodox Catholicism" kind of guy that I could trust to teach it straight. Please help me!

Although I'll post the pertinent posts here, the original document is at Modernist deniers of Christ's Resurrection! - Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums .

He bases his claim that the Pope Emeritus doesn't believe in Christ's physical resurrection on the following documents:

"The sentence ‘Jesus has risen’ thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded. With this statement we seem to be again at the heart of the conflict with which we started, since the Resurrection is understood by one group as a historical event and as part of the long line of salvation history but by the other as the eschatological event that transcends all history." (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology[San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 184).

“It now also becomes clear that the real heart of faith in resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible. What then is the content of the hope symbolically proclaimed in the Bible in the shape of the resurrection of the dead? (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1970], p. 270-271).


He bases his claim that the Pope Emeritus taught Consubstantiation (although he seems to concede that it was only on this occasion) in this encyclical:
Deus caritas est, #13:"Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna."

Oh it's CARM; that explains it all.
They hate Catholics over there, so of course they would allow stuff like this. ^^^

 

[Jack Isaacks]

Oh it's CARM; that explains it all.
They hate Catholics over there, so of course they would allow stuff like this. ^^^

What I don't understand is how Sedevacantists can claim to be traditional, when their premise is NOT!

Christ is risen!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh it's CARM; that explains it all.
They hate Catholics over there, so of course they would allow stuff like this. ^^^

I wouldn't expect much of authentic Catholic teaching on CARM. Sorry. Too much water under that bridge. There. I shot the messenger. But the messenger has an ample history of what kind of message he normally carries. Now carrying a sedevacantist message that Benedict is a modernist is about as convincing as anything else I have seen from there.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Although I am familiar with this book, I have the Ignatius Press edition and thus cannot find the quote. In any case, Ratzinger is presumably saying that the new body is not merely resuscitated or restored (like Lazarus), but is resurrected as the firstfruits of the new creation. (Again, the passage is simply insufficient for the conclusion the person wishes to draw. What is supposed to be problematic about it?)

I haven't read the book in question, but I have read Pope Benedict's book on Jesus and Holy Week, and in that book he does discuss at length how important it is that the resurrection was not merely someone coming back to life (since, after all, that had happened several times before) but instead the resurrection was a beginning of an entirely new life, exactly as you suggest. So I imagine that the argument is probably the same in the quoted text.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Pope Benedict XVI would often present the secularist view and then explain why it's wrong.

So the context is very important when reading his books.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Something important to remember with Pope Benedict (and especially in his writings from when he was then Cardinal Ratzinger) is that he is a scholar. Many of his writings are intended to actively engage the current scholarship in various areas of theology. Part of doing good scholarly work is summarizing the current state of the debate. And while it is clear from his writings that Pope Benedict vehemently rejected many modernist theories (especially those that reduce Jesus to a mere human revolutionary), at the same time those theories definitely exist and get a lot of support from many theologians. Therefore it is necessary that he summarize the modernist arguments at length in many of his writings. After that, however, he usually shows why they are not at all persuasive.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Something important to remember with Pope Benedict (and especially in his writings from when he was then Cardinal Ratzinger) is that he is a scholar. Many of his writings are intended to actively engage the current scholarship in various areas of theology. Part of doing good scholarly work is summarizing the current state of the debate. And while it is clear from his writings that Pope Benedict vehemently rejected many modernist theories (especially those that reduce Jesus to a mere human revolutionary), at the same time those theories definitely exist and get a lot of support from many theologians. Therefore it is necessary that he summarize the modernist arguments at length in many of his writings. After that, however, he usually shows why they are not at all persuasive.

Here's an example of that point:

The great era of liberal theology came to an end with the First World War and the radical change in the intellectual climate that followed it. But there had already been rumblings of a revolution much earlier. The first clear signal of what was to come was a book by Johannes Weiss that appeared in 1892 under the title Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Albert Schweitzer’s early exegetical works share the same outlook. Jesus’ message, it was now claimed, was radically “eschatological”; his proclamation of the imminent Kingdom of God was a proclamation of the imminent end of the world, of the inbreaking of a new world where, as the term kingdom suggests, God would reign. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God, it was argued, must therefore be understood as reffering strictly to the end times. Even texts that seemingly contradict this interpretation were somewhat violently made to fit it—for example, the growth parables about the sower (cf. Mk 4:3-9), the mustard seed (cf. Mk 4:30-32), the leaven (cf. Mt 13:33/Lk 13:20), and the spontaneously sprouting seed (cf. Mk 4:26-29). The point, it was said, is not growth; rather, Jesus is trying to say that while now our world is small, something very different is about to burst suddenly onto the scene. Here, obviously, theory predominated over listening to the text. Various efforts have been made to transpose Jesus’ vision of the imminent end times into the language of modern Christian life, since for us it is not immediately intelligible. Bultmann, for example, tried to do so in terms of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger—arguing that what matters is an existential attitude of “always standing at the ready.” Jürgen Moltmann, building on the work of Ernst Bloch, worked out a “theory of hope,” which claimed to interpret faith as an active involvement in the shaping of the future.

Since that time, a secularist reinterpretation of the idea of the Kingdom has gained considerable ground, particularly, though not exclusively, in Catholic theology. This reinterpretation propounds a new view of Christianity, religions, and history in general, and it claims that such radical refashioning will enable people to reappropriate Jesus’ supposed message. It is claimed that in pre—Vatican II period “ecclesiocentrism” was the dominant position: The Church was represented as the center of Christianity. Then there was a shift to Christocentrism, to the doctrine that Christ is the center of everything. But it is not only the Church that is divisive—so the argument continues—since Christ belongs exclusively to Christians. Hence the further step from Christocentrism to theocentrism. This has allegedly brought us closer to the community of religions, but our final goal continues to elude us, since even God can be a cause of division between religions and between people.

Therefore, it is claimed, we must now move toward “regnocentrism,” that is, toward the centrality of the Kingdom. This at last, we are told, is the heart of Jesus’ message, and it is also the right formula for finally harnessing mankind’s positive energies and directing them toward the world’s future. “Kingdom,” on this interpretation, is simply the name for a world governed by peace, justice, and the conservation of creation. It means no more than this. This “Kingdom” is said to be the goal of history that has to be attained. This is supposedly the real task of religions: to work together for the coming of the “Kingdom.” They are of course perfectly free to preserve their traditions and live according to their respective identities as well, but they must bring their different identities to bear on the common task of building the “Kingdom,” a world, in other words, where peace, justice, and respect for creation are the dominant values.

This sounds good; it seems like a way of finally enabling the whole world to appropriate Jesus’ message, but without requiring missionary evangelization of other religions. It looks as if now, at long last, Jesus’ words have gained some practical content, because the establishment of the “Kingdom” has become a common task and is drawing nigh. On closer examination, though, it seems suspicious. Who is to say what justice is? What serves justice in particular situations? How do we create peace? On closer inspection, this whole project proves to be utopian dreaming without any real content, except insofar as its exponents tacitly presuppose some partisan doctrine as the content that all are required to accept.

But the main thing that leaps out is that God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the stage. The respect for religious “traditions” claimed by this way of thinking is only apparent. The truth is that they are regarded as so many sets of customs, which people should be allowed to keep, even though they ultimately count for nothing. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. Religion matters only insofar as it can serve that objective. This post-Christian vision of faith and religion is disturbingly close to Jesus’ third temptation.

— Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth - Vol I, pp. 52-55

One has to read that entire quote to understand what he is saying.

It can't be cut shorter without cutting his thought short.