C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Exit one reputation as “one who will support themself”. If you haven’t the time or inclination to make yourself reputable, why should your reputation be anything more than a non-existence?
- Status
M
MFTM
Guest
My church book group has been studying His Holiness’ book for the past year. It is a very scholarly and well written book! From a devout educated and well read Catholic stand point there are no detectable errors. It seem that only those who seek to discredit the credibility of the Catholic faith or Christianity in general are capable of find these (non-existent) errors.
Namesake as far as the one point you made goes, you are the one who is in complete error. I can only say that you either did not bother to read much of the book or you are not very well educated in Christianity and were very confused by the book’s scholarly style. Pope Benedict repeated says that Moses was not allowed to “see God’s face but only His back” and that only Jesus can show us the face of th Father because He is the only one to have seen it. Jesus is refer to as the new but ****superior Moses.
Namesake as far as the one point you made goes, you are the one who is in complete error. I can only say that you either did not bother to read much of the book or you are not very well educated in Christianity and were very confused by the book’s scholarly style. Pope Benedict repeated says that Moses was not allowed to “see God’s face but only His back” and that only Jesus can show us the face of th Father because He is the only one to have seen it. Jesus is refer to as the new but ****superior Moses.
S
SFTor
Guest
Could it be that his support for the “reconstruction” implies that the Bible scholar in question is too aware of the many historical problems in the Bible, such as the non-existence of Nazareth at Jesus’s time, etc., and that distancing the Christ of Paul from the historical Joshua dissolves some of these issues?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Sources please. No one will believe you if you can’t provide a source for this outrageous claim.
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
The works of the Holy Father almost seem to be a litmus test for theologians. In fact, if I want to know if a professor is orthodox or not, I usually only have to ask him: Have you read any Ratzinger? What did you think? And his true colours come out in the response.
Before he was elected Supreme Pontiff, there was a common joke told about Cardinal Ratzinger that I am usually hesitant to tell, because I wish him long life and good health (for another twenty or so years if I had my way
), but will tell it here for the sake of showing what kind of reputation he has:
Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.
St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them to discuss their views on various issues.
He then points at Rahner and says “Karl! In my office…” After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out of St. Peter’s office. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung’s direction and “Hans! You’re next…” After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Cardinal Ratzinger, “Joseph, your turn.” TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, apparently exhausted, saying “Oh God, that’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done…”
Before he was elected Supreme Pontiff, there was a common joke told about Cardinal Ratzinger that I am usually hesitant to tell, because I wish him long life and good health (for another twenty or so years if I had my way
), but will tell it here for the sake of showing what kind of reputation he has:Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.
St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them to discuss their views on various issues.
He then points at Rahner and says “Karl! In my office…” After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out of St. Peter’s office. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung’s direction and “Hans! You’re next…” After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Cardinal Ratzinger, “Joseph, your turn.” TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, apparently exhausted, saying “Oh God, that’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done…”
B
brockmac
Guest
I have just begun reading the book in question, and having read one heretical book on the “historical Jesus” a while back, I am refreshed to see HH starting with the Gospel accounts and basing his assesment of who Christ was and is primarily on the work of the four evangilists. His insights on the Lord’s baptism have changed the way I will look at baptism forever.
Not being an expert on Biblical Scholarship, I will leave that question for others to answer. I will simply say that so far his book is very edifying, which is much more important to me than whether or not it is scholarly.
Not being an expert on Biblical Scholarship, I will leave that question for others to answer. I will simply say that so far his book is very edifying, which is much more important to me than whether or not it is scholarly.
9
9Choirs
Guest
Now that is funny! LolBefore he was elected Supreme Pontiff, there was a common joke told about Cardinal Ratzinger that I am usually hesitant to tell, because I wish him long life and good health (for another twenty or so years if I had my way
Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.
St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them to discuss their views on various issues.
He then points at Rahner and says “Karl! In my office…” After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out of St. Peter’s office. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung’s direction and “Hans! You’re next…” After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Cardinal Ratzinger, “Joseph, your turn.” TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, apparently exhausted, saying “Oh God, that’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done…”
I
Inman
Guest
I know this it a bit off topic, so forgive me.
I am a bit suprised at the hostility toward NCR. I really don’t have an opinion about whether they are orthodox or not, but I do have a great deal of fondness for the NCR, especially John Allen’s column.
Long before I seriously considered converting, I was fascinated by the Church and all of its customs, organizational structure, etc. I began reading Allen column weekely mainly because I was interested in the politics and bureucracy of the Church. However, through his column, I developed a greater appreciation for the teachings of the Church.
While it wasn’t enough to convert, I think reading his column later made me more receptive to the action of the Holy Spirt.
I am a bit suprised at the hostility toward NCR. I really don’t have an opinion about whether they are orthodox or not, but I do have a great deal of fondness for the NCR, especially John Allen’s column.
Long before I seriously considered converting, I was fascinated by the Church and all of its customs, organizational structure, etc. I began reading Allen column weekely mainly because I was interested in the politics and bureucracy of the Church. However, through his column, I developed a greater appreciation for the teachings of the Church.
While it wasn’t enough to convert, I think reading his column later made me more receptive to the action of the Holy Spirt.
D
dcdurel
Guest
The problem with biblical scholarship is that it tends to take a Protestant viewpoint. That is it tends to separate scripture from the Gospel the apostles handed down, then each scholar makes up his own Gospel in place of the one the apostle handed down.
Lets take a perfectly clear example for Catholics.
The Eucharist. Biblical scholars can’t agree what Jesus meant when He was talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John chapter 6. If they are non-Catholic they will rarely give the Catholic interpretation, no matter how brilliant they are, no matter how great a scholar they are. In the end, biblical scholars have no agreement on this subject.
Yet, if you read the writings of the early Christians, who learned from the apostles, they all agreed, and they gave the same teachings the Church teaches today. And they weren’t biblical scholars.
What is the difference?
The difference is that the early Christians who agree with what the Church teaches, learned from the apostles, and they did not learn their Gospel by reading scripture.
Thus, the apostles must have all taught the same thing.
Why did the apostles teach the same thing?
Because the apostles learned the Gospel directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the apostles “everything” and “all things”, then there is no doctrine the apostles could have learned from reading scripture.
So, the apostles did not learn their basic Gospel truths, such as who Jesus claimed to be, or what he meant by “eating His flesh”, etc., from reading the bible, or from studying scripture. No, they learned directly from God.
Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
Mt 13:11 “to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
And since no where does scripture claim to present the full Gospel that the apostles learned from Jesus, then it is impossible for anyone, even biblical scholars, to learn these Gospel truths from scripture. The four Gospels only claim to present narratives of the life of Jesus. They do not claim to present the full Gospel that the apostles learned from Jesus.
That is why Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, (Mark 16:26) and no where did Jesus say salvation would come from reading the bible, studying the bible, studying scripture etc.
There is no reason at all why scripture should have all the truths of salvation in it. There is no reason why scripture should have any truth of salvation explicit in it. And it doesn’t. Even the four Gospels that present narratives of the life of Jesus and present some of His teachings, never present any teaching so clearly and explicitly that all those who follow scripture alone can agree. Scripture is basically salvation history. Scripture does NOT claim to present the Gospel the apostles learned from Jesus. There is not a single book, not a single chapter that claims to present this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. And this Gospel was so extensive that Jesus had to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles so they could remember it all.
Lets take a perfectly clear example for Catholics.
The Eucharist. Biblical scholars can’t agree what Jesus meant when He was talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John chapter 6. If they are non-Catholic they will rarely give the Catholic interpretation, no matter how brilliant they are, no matter how great a scholar they are. In the end, biblical scholars have no agreement on this subject.
Yet, if you read the writings of the early Christians, who learned from the apostles, they all agreed, and they gave the same teachings the Church teaches today. And they weren’t biblical scholars.
What is the difference?
The difference is that the early Christians who agree with what the Church teaches, learned from the apostles, and they did not learn their Gospel by reading scripture.
Thus, the apostles must have all taught the same thing.
Why did the apostles teach the same thing?
Because the apostles learned the Gospel directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the apostles “everything” and “all things”, then there is no doctrine the apostles could have learned from reading scripture.
So, the apostles did not learn their basic Gospel truths, such as who Jesus claimed to be, or what he meant by “eating His flesh”, etc., from reading the bible, or from studying scripture. No, they learned directly from God.
Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
Mt 13:11 “to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
And since no where does scripture claim to present the full Gospel that the apostles learned from Jesus, then it is impossible for anyone, even biblical scholars, to learn these Gospel truths from scripture. The four Gospels only claim to present narratives of the life of Jesus. They do not claim to present the full Gospel that the apostles learned from Jesus.
That is why Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, (Mark 16:26) and no where did Jesus say salvation would come from reading the bible, studying the bible, studying scripture etc.
There is no reason at all why scripture should have all the truths of salvation in it. There is no reason why scripture should have any truth of salvation explicit in it. And it doesn’t. Even the four Gospels that present narratives of the life of Jesus and present some of His teachings, never present any teaching so clearly and explicitly that all those who follow scripture alone can agree. Scripture is basically salvation history. Scripture does NOT claim to present the Gospel the apostles learned from Jesus. There is not a single book, not a single chapter that claims to present this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. And this Gospel was so extensive that Jesus had to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles so they could remember it all.
D
dcdurel
Guest
So, Jesus intended everyone to learn the Gospel from the apostles and from the successors they appointed, and not from reading scripture.
The Church never learned a single doctrine of salvation from scripture, because the apostles were taught “everything” by Jesus. If the apostles had learned any doctrine from scripture, then Jesus lied when He said He taught the apostles everything and when He said the Holy Spirit would teach them “all things”. Thus, the apostles were taught directly by God and these teachings were ALL handed down to their successors, the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.
All those who reject this Gospel the Church teaches, which is the Catholic faith, and come up with something different, simply teach a man-made Gospel in its place. Whether they take some truths the Church has handed down and modify the rest, or whether they claim to learn the Gospel entirely from scripture, the result is the same. It is a man-made Gospel, not one that comes from God.
Now the reason faithful Catholic biblical scholars can understand scripture better than others is because they were taught the Gospel the apostles handed down. Thus, when they read the New Testament, they can see the truths that are referred to in the writings. Of course, that was the intention of the New Testament writers. The New Testament was written to Catholics who already knew the Gospel. It was written to present salvation history, and so help understand better the truths that had been handed down. Thus to really understand scripture, one must first learn the Gospel the Church handed down as the Catholic faith.
All those who reject the Catholic faith that the apostles learned from Jesus, will end up confused and in disagreement when they try to come up with new teachings through their study of scripture.
The Church never learned a single doctrine of salvation from scripture, because the apostles were taught “everything” by Jesus. If the apostles had learned any doctrine from scripture, then Jesus lied when He said He taught the apostles everything and when He said the Holy Spirit would teach them “all things”. Thus, the apostles were taught directly by God and these teachings were ALL handed down to their successors, the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.
All those who reject this Gospel the Church teaches, which is the Catholic faith, and come up with something different, simply teach a man-made Gospel in its place. Whether they take some truths the Church has handed down and modify the rest, or whether they claim to learn the Gospel entirely from scripture, the result is the same. It is a man-made Gospel, not one that comes from God.
Now the reason faithful Catholic biblical scholars can understand scripture better than others is because they were taught the Gospel the apostles handed down. Thus, when they read the New Testament, they can see the truths that are referred to in the writings. Of course, that was the intention of the New Testament writers. The New Testament was written to Catholics who already knew the Gospel. It was written to present salvation history, and so help understand better the truths that had been handed down. Thus to really understand scripture, one must first learn the Gospel the Church handed down as the Catholic faith.
All those who reject the Catholic faith that the apostles learned from Jesus, will end up confused and in disagreement when they try to come up with new teachings through their study of scripture.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
You take an unusual and interesting literalist approach to rejecting the supremacy of scripture. However, I don’t think it is supported by Church teaching or tradition.
The phrase “all things” is an idiom and so should not be taken absolutely literally in most cases. It would be like saying “Everything I have I owe to my parents.” Do I really mean everything, even the Jack Chick tract handed to me today by some street preacher? No. Does that make me a liar? Only if we ignore the common meaning of the idiom.
S
Spirithound
Guest
If Jesus and the Holy Spirit didn’t teach the Apostles, then who did? The Apostles wrote Scripture, they couldn’t refer to it.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I never denied that Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles.
There is an enormous chunk of scripture not written by the Apostles. For example, the Book of Zephaniah.
Let’s get back to your claim:
If we take your literalist approach to this, then we must accept that Jesus taught the apostles absolutely everything relating to the doctrine of salvation, and we must accept the same thing about the Holy Spirit. If this is true, then what the apostles were taught by the Holy Spirit must be completely identical to what they were taught by Jesus.
However, it seems likely that at least in the case of Paul, whose normal exposure to Jesus was limited if at all, and whose supernatural exposure to Jesus was likewise brief, did not get the same teaching directly from Jesus that the The Twelve did. No doubt he got all the key points pretty clearly, which is how I would take the word “everything” here. But it defies common sense to suggest that he was taught everything identically to the other apostles, and there’s no compelling reason to follow that interpretation here.
I also believe it defies tradition to suggest that the teaching of the Holy Spirit is identical in even the most minor respects to the teaching of Jesus. The teachings are certainly not at odds, rather they reinforce and complement each other. They are in essence the same. However, you claim they are not just identical in essence, but in every respect.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Do you generally refer to the Old Testament to talk about salvation? To trace the whole salvation history, sure, but the meat of what we need to know is in the Apostles’ writings. Yes, Jesus explained the OT on the road to Emmaus, but that’s because they didn’t understand it, thus Jesus’s teachings. Salvation is through Jesus, we learn this today through the NT. The Apostles learned it from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
This isn’t actually my claim. That text block belongs to dcdurel. I don’t hold to the hyper-literal definitions of “everything” that you provide, and I don’t think dcdurel’s post requires it. It is not necessary that all of the Apostles were provided instantaneously with the exact same block of knowledge, but perhaps they learned from each other, discussed it. We know that Paul actually spent some time learning from Peter. All we (possibly just I) are saying is that the 12 Apostles learned all their stuff from God (in the Second or Third Person). Scripture (OT) was opaque; they needed instruction. Paul received his knowledge via instruction from Peter.
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
Studying religion and culture in university {still currently}, I have about a dozen different “Christ’s” or “Jesus’s of Nazareth” sitting on my bookshelf from any number of authors giving us the “real historical Jesus”.
For years, in this light, the New Testament appeared to me as nothing more than a series of sensless contradictions, because each and every scholar could only seem to make a case for a very partial vision of Jesus, leaving the rest of the text to be incomprehensible. Somehow, I seemed to believe them all at once (now, that’s faith!)
May God bless Pope Benedict, for his book actually offered me a vision of the New Testament- indeed, implicitly the entire Bible, that, for the first time, seemed to be something whole.
This lead me back to Christianity and Catholicism.
I was surprised to discover that it was actually in the New Testament itself, morever, the NT as always understood by the Church, where the interpretive key to the entire text was to be found, and only by taking this gospels seriously, does their message, once confronted with I could not deny, become clear.
For years, in this light, the New Testament appeared to me as nothing more than a series of sensless contradictions, because each and every scholar could only seem to make a case for a very partial vision of Jesus, leaving the rest of the text to be incomprehensible. Somehow, I seemed to believe them all at once (now, that’s faith!)
May God bless Pope Benedict, for his book actually offered me a vision of the New Testament- indeed, implicitly the entire Bible, that, for the first time, seemed to be something whole.
This lead me back to Christianity and Catholicism.
I was surprised to discover that it was actually in the New Testament itself, morever, the NT as always understood by the Church, where the interpretive key to the entire text was to be found, and only by taking this gospels seriously, does their message, once confronted with I could not deny, become clear.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
My apologies. I came back to this thread after a few days, and overlooked the fact that while you were replying to my comments, you were not actually the target of my criticism. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I think it is contrary to the more absolutist statement I quoted from dcdurel.
To say the apostles got their understanding of salvation predominantly from Jesus’s words and actions is one thing. It is a different thing to suggest that if even a fragment of that understanding came independently from study of scripture, it would make Jesus a liar.
L
LittleOne1
Guest
To be more on topic with this thread, I believe the Pope actually to be one of the finest biblical scholars around. His book, Introduction to Christianity, far and away is one of the best deepest written books on the heart of christianity. JPII even turned to Ratzingher on biblical matters. Scott Hahn wrote a nice piece on Benedict’s strength as a scholar. If anything Benedict transformed the Historical Method and turned it into something that would yield fruit. This has been his mission all along is to take the good from things and to remove the twists from it, whether reconciling with Schismatic groups or making huge strides in reconciling with the Orthodox Chruches.
salvationhistory.com/mission/b16BiblicalTheologian.cfm
He will quietly go do as one of the great popes of our time, a prolific writer and one of the greatest scholars ever. He certainly is on the same level as Von Hildebrand in my opinion.
salvationhistory.com/mission/b16BiblicalTheologian.cfm
He will quietly go do as one of the great popes of our time, a prolific writer and one of the greatest scholars ever. He certainly is on the same level as Von Hildebrand in my opinion.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
What exactly are your credentials that you feel you can make such an assessment?
A
Arnobius
Guest
I find it interesting that Namesake has publicly stated he does not believe the Pope is very knowledgeable of scripture and finds many errors in the work, and has sought to defend an argument that anything Greek in concept had to be alien to what Jesus knew.
OK… and the fact that Nazareth was in an area heavily influenced by the gentile populations (Ever hear of the Decapolis?) The fact there were many Diaspora Jews?
The assumptions of the quoted article are that Jesus was a Jewish reformer, whose ideas were Hellenized. Kind of hard to prove this, isn’t it?
Certainly we know the New Testament was written in Greek for readers of Greek, which were not only the Gentiles but the Diaspora Jews.
CS Lewis once pointed out that since the Gospels are our source of knowledge of Christ, any attempt at a “Historical Jesus” is to ignore an aspect and exaggerate another.
And of course, to argue that the Pope was wrong in his beliefs yet refuse to say how so… seems rather dubious to be at best in terms of credibility.
OK… and the fact that Nazareth was in an area heavily influenced by the gentile populations (Ever hear of the Decapolis?) The fact there were many Diaspora Jews?
The assumptions of the quoted article are that Jesus was a Jewish reformer, whose ideas were Hellenized. Kind of hard to prove this, isn’t it?
Certainly we know the New Testament was written in Greek for readers of Greek, which were not only the Gentiles but the Diaspora Jews.
CS Lewis once pointed out that since the Gospels are our source of knowledge of Christ, any attempt at a “Historical Jesus” is to ignore an aspect and exaggerate another.
And of course, to argue that the Pope was wrong in his beliefs yet refuse to say how so… seems rather dubious to be at best in terms of credibility.
C
Crumpy
Guest
*Jesus of Nazareth * may not meet scholarly, academic standards, but who cares? I seem to recall that the Pope explicitly “skates” on a topic here or there. This book is what you might call a ‘popular’ theology book. Of course, it’s no summa theologica. How many people have read that?
On one of Fr. Corapi’s taped programs the other night, he was going on about how more than 99 percent of Catholics haven’t read the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt he’s right. Who can keep up with, let’s say, the writings of John Paul II?
I don’t know of any priest, for sure, who’s read all that (although I give Fr. Mitch Pacwa a lot of credit for being well-read). I do know a lot of priests who **don’t want **their parishes to read Vatican II documents. And, it wouldn’t make much difference if they did.
On one of Fr. Corapi’s taped programs the other night, he was going on about how more than 99 percent of Catholics haven’t read the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt he’s right. Who can keep up with, let’s say, the writings of John Paul II?
I don’t know of any priest, for sure, who’s read all that (although I give Fr. Mitch Pacwa a lot of credit for being well-read). I do know a lot of priests who **don’t want **their parishes to read Vatican II documents. And, it wouldn’t make much difference if they did.
- Status