Dangerous modernism of Ratzinger?

  • Thread starter Thread starter irom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

irom

Guest
In the article by Joe Heschmeyer ‘What Sola Scriptura Gets Wrong about Revelation’ (Nov-Dec 2019) author is referring to ‘revelation is an action, not a collection’ findings of Ratzinger researching Bonaventure. It was his postdoctoral thesis in the mid-1950s which was denied by Ratzinger’s professor, Michael Schmaus as “a dangerous modernism that had to lead to the subjectivization of the concept of revelation”. Isn’t it intuitively wrong ? I know interpretation can evolve, but the whole revelation ?
 
Last edited:
irom said:
Isn’t it intuitively wrong ? I know interpretation can evolve, but the whole revelation ?
Click to expand...
Isn’t what intuitively wrong? That revelation is an action or that scripture is a part of a larger body of revelation received by the Church?

Interesting article on the subject: Benedict XVI and Bonaventure - ZENIT - English

Especially this part:
“These insights,” Ratzinger continued, “gained through my reading of Bonaventure, were later on very important for me at the time of the conciliar discussion on revelation, Scripture, and tradition. Because, if Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura [“by Scripture alone”], because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given.”
Click to expand...
 
-tion a suffix occurring in words of Latin origin, used to form abstract nouns from verbs or stems not identical with verbs, whether as expressing action (revolution; commendation), or a state (contrition; starvation), or associated meanings (relation; temptation). Dictionary.com
Click to expand...
I am inclined the other way, to see revelation intuitively as an action. It is possible to use the word to mean what has been revealed but I think that is a weaker usage. The definition above is not much help.

God is pure act as they say, so that probably pushes me toward the active, verbal intuition rather than the static fulfilled idea. That comes closer to modernism, but it is still distinguishable; it is not a feeling based intuition, but an intellectual insight.
 
How could it be wrong? Revelation, according to St. Paul, began the moment God created something from nothing. That was action. The fullness of revelation appeared in the person of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Incarnate. Jesus never wrote anything down (except whatever he wrote in the dirt), but rather acted on behalf of our salvation, thus revealing the very heart of God. Likewise, the Church’s primary task isn’t merely to maintain a specific list of dogmas to be believed (as important as that is). The Church’s primary task is to continue the saving action of Christ through the Sacraments.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The fullness of revelation appeared in the person of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Incarnate. Jesus never wrote anything down (except whatever he wrote in the dirt), but rather acted on behalf of our salvation
Click to expand...
This. Revelation was happening long before any Scripture got written down.
This seems pretty basic.

And in any event, we know where Ratzinger ended up. I never heard of Schmaus.
 
Last edited:
As to allegations of modernism, Pope Benedict XVI wrote of the pluses, but seems also to be one of the few to point out the limitations, even the negatives of you will, of the historical-critical (modernist) method of manuscript exegesis.
 
This is very true. He has been very open about the fact that the historical-critical method is a good tool for doing exegesis, but it isn’t the only (nor even the primary) tool that should be in the exegete’s belt.
 
Indeed, if we examine the results - the fruits if you will - of modernist exegesis, we see the supernatural element increasingly drained out of the Gospel. A certain bible in current use has introductions and footnotes with the distinct flavor of historical-critical in them.

At first blush, what I note is that Christian history is first questioned, then doubted. Complication is introduced. I may be alone in this, but I see a distinct parallel in Genesis 3, when the simplicity of paradisaical living was disturbed by sudden questions, accompanied by the introduction of doubt and complication.

The modernist-influenced commentators pay far less attention to the Old Testament than to the new. I find that, at the same time, both unusual and telling.
 
I think another issue you may be running into is that the (Roman) Church hasn’t absorbed and internalized the theology of St. Bonaventure (a Doctor of the Church) in the same way or to the extent that she has the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (equally a Doctor of the Church). Anything that doesn’t reek of Thomism is almost always denounced as “modernism”.
 
Revelation is one person revealing himself to another. God to man. Is that an action? It seems to me it is not just an action as we know acting.
In God, being and acting are one thing.
It has to be a mystery.
 
Our pastor is schooled in histo-critical method and taught in seminary.
He has full appreciation for the Old Testament as part of God’s saving revelation.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I think another issue you may be running into is that the (Roman) Church hasn’t absorbed and internalized the theology of St. Bonaventure (a Doctor of the Church) in the same way or to the extent that she has the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (equally a Doctor of the Church). Anything that doesn’t reek of Thomism is almost always denounced as “modernism”.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that I would impart the opinion of one theologian who isn’t all that well known, at least not outside Germany, to the entire Roman Church.
Especially when we put the guy embracing Bonaventure in the Pope seat and he becomes the face of anything but “Modernism”.
 
Last edited:
irom said:
That revelation is an action is intuitively wrong
Click to expand...
I am guessing that most of us don’t have enough of a theological foundation to make such a determination based on intuition.
 
The idea of ongoing revelation is used by some to mean that the Magisterium can create new doctrines from new revelations (or even just because someone wants new teachings for whatever reason). That’s modernism.
The public revelation of Christ was closed with His teaching to the apostles. Everything that follows from that is explanation of what has been revealed, not new doctrines.
Revelation is an action, but it is also a closed set of teachings given by God.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I think another issue you may be running into is that the (Roman) Church hasn’t absorbed and internalized the theology of St. Bonaventure (a Doctor of the Church) in the same way or to the extent that she has the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (equally a Doctor of the Church). Anything that doesn’t reek of Thomism is almost always denounced as “modernism”.
Click to expand...
There could be good reasons for giving a higher level of authority to one doctor than to another. It’s not like the Church hasn’t had sufficient time to evaluate them.

“Reek of Thomism”?
 
Last edited:
Father Ratzinger wrote many things in the 1950s and 60s of a speculative nature, to seek inquiry into topics that had not then been discussed much. Since then these topics were discussed much.

Be cautious about reading backwards from today to give a semi papal glow to his earlier statements about Scripture or marriage or whatever.
 
The bulk of the Roman Church’s theological energy (until recent times) has been focused on unpacking St. Thomas Aquinas’s theology. From what I understand, the main reason he has had such a huge influence is because we had a series of Dominican popes who heavily promoted Aquinas’s theology. Such has never happened with the theology of St. Bonaventure. As far as I know, Pope Benedict XVI is the only pope who was steeped in Bonaventure’s theology. It’s just my opinion, but I honestly don’t think Bonaventure has gotten the hearing that he deserves.

By my “reek of Thomism” comment I’m referring to writers like Garrigou-Lagrange (whom I do like) and some of his more ardent adherents who equate Catholic theology with Thomistic and pseudo-scholastic theology. Their primary mission is often geared towards attacking the “Resourcement” and “Nouvelle Theologie” movements. In some extreme cases they even denounce the most brilliant theologians of these movements (e.g. Danielou, Ratzinger, Bouyer, von Balthasar, Congar, etc.) as modernists. But anyone who’s ever read any of the above mentioned authors would know that they are anything but modernists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top