Pope Benedict XVI on the Magisterium: What does this mean?

[Rach620]

We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John’s Gospel describes that tevent in these words: “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should…have eternal life” (3:16)…Since God has first loved us, love is now no longer a mere ‘command’; it is the response to the gift of love which God draws near to us."

1. Guess the author
2. Is this not a valid statement about our Catholic faith?

 

[cor]

It would be helpful if you’d offer an explanation/interpretation of the quotes you post, instead of just expecting them to speak for themselves.

The key word here is merely. You’d be hard pressed to prove that Benedict XVI or John Paul II believe the Church to be any kind of mere phenomenon.

“pneumatological” means ghostly/spiritual or sometimes specifically of the Holy Ghost/Spirit

 

[gorman64]

Rach620:

It would be helpful if you’d offer an explanation/interpretation of the quotes you post, instead of just expecting them to speak for themselves.

The key word here is merely. You’d be hard pressed to prove that Benedict XVI or John Paul II believe the Church to be any kind of mere phenomenon.

Dear Rach620,

Pope Pius XII is speaking here, in the Encyclical Mysti Corporis Christi. I let it stand as stated…I believe it is clear. Who do you think this encyclical was directed at…no one? Or were there those out there who were holding this error and needed correction?

The Mystici Corporis then gives the coup de grace to the teachings that the true Church of Jesus Christ is something other than a visible or truly organized society in this world by the following pronouncement:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

Also, from that same encyclical:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Does that help?

Gorman

 

[Rach620]

“pneumatological” means ghostly/spiritual or sometimes specifically of the Holy Ghost/Spirit

Ah, I thought I should have looked it up . That’s still relevant though…the Pope was saying that it’s not enough for someone to believe that the Church is *merely *something spiritual (even if by that they mean ‘of the Holy Spirit’), because the mystical Body of Christ is also a physical one. I still would say that JPII and B XVI wouldn’t disagree with that statement.

Dear Rach620,

Pope Pius XII is speaking here, in the Encyclical Mysti Corporis Christi. I let it stand as stated…I believe it is clear. Who do you think this encyclical was directed at…no one? Or were there those out there who were holding this error and needed correction?

I was just pointing out that it’s helpful, when quoting something to prove a point on an online forum, to at least tersely explain what point you might be trying to make that is relevant to the discussion. I understand what was said in the encyclical, as far as correcting a theological error. I am still uncertain as to how this ties into the phenomenological theological method of our current Holy Father, who would not deny that the mystical body of Christ must have a corresponding physical element.

Quoted: 22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Does that help?

…help what? You introduced another possible point of contention (ecumenism and Vatican II), that’s all. Still haven’t addressed the issue of Benedict’s phenomenology and why it’s not in keeping with Catholic Tradition.

 

[gorman64]

Dear Rach620,

What should be clear is the following:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

It is a divine truth that “those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit” and they error who say that “by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.”

This condemns the idea that non-Catholic communities are in some sort of “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

From Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:

1. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ’s free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done.** We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” “The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts**…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence…Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17)

Finally it is the body of Christ - that is, of course, His mystical body, but a body living and duly organized and composed of many members; members indeed which have not all the same functions, but which, united one to the other, are kept bound together by the guidance and authority of the head.

Does that help?

Gorman

 

[rtconstant]

I think our Holy Father is a deep philosopher and man with mystical insights. I love him very much and think he is a gift from God of the highest order.

I agree. I love the Holy Father and pray for him everyday.

 

[anthony022071]

The Pope’s thoughts on the Magisterium might be better understood in light of what he has written of the Mass and the Eucharist,that its meaning must never be considered to be of man’s own making but rather something to be accepted from God.
Considering the Pope’s reputation for being an enforcer of liturgical and catechistic orthodoxy, there shouldn’t be much cause for concern.

 

[Rach620]

Dear Rach620,

What should be clear is the following:

It is a divine truth that “those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit” and they error who say that “by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.”

This condemns the idea that non-Catholic communities are in some sort of “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

From Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:

Does that help?

It could be that I’ve been trying to finish a couple of term papers this week and am becoming virtually brain-dead…but no, it didn’t really help.

What I got from that is “you’re either in, or you’re out; there’s no middle ground, even for other Christians.” Correct? I’m not sure what I think about this, especially regarding my understanding of much of the Tradition of the Church, including various Fathers (I’m thinking Justin Martyr, maybe Origen, others…) which would hold that the pursuit of wisdom/the truth (ie, ‘good’ philosophy) could be thought of as pursuing Christ, who is Incarnate divine Wisdom. Like I said–really not sure how this works, it’s just a notion that seems half-right, half-wrong to me…but a valid concern nonetheless that cannot be dismissed out of hand, even by a papal encyclical!

So I think I understand the point you’re trying to make about ecumenism, the point that would relate to the Vatican II declaration (in Lumen Gentium, I’m almost positive) that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”. That seems to leave a bit more…wiggle room when it comes to what the exact relationship between the mystical and physical Body of Christ is. We can start another thread to discuss this, if you’d like (but please–wait until after finals! ).

But it still hasn’t shown to me what the problem is with phenomenology.

Is it that phenomenological theology believes in the discovery of divine Truth, and that we come to know it through human experiences?

That the Truth is not limited in its expression to scholastic philosophical/theological premises and conclusions, but can be discovered in every realm of human life? (for example, sexual relationships, as discussed in Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility)

Or do you read into this declaration’s condemnation of basically all of ecumenism the condemnation of every magisterial teaching/er since Vatican II which even hinted at that possibility, including every aspect of the phenomenological approach which can lead to that interpretation? (ie, undertones of sedevacantism or at least ‘fundamentalist’ traditionalism?)

Or is it just that you think the Pope, as head, should firmly establish the doctrinal bonds which will tie together the Church Militant, without regard for examining their roots? (and that B XVI isn’t doing that…)

I understand what the documents are saying; I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

 

[rescath]

I’ll go into Humani Generis – but it’s widely known to have been a condemnation of nouvelle theologie. Very often popes did not mention people or theological movements by name but condemend the principles behind them.

Just the utter contempt for Thomism expressed by the von Balthasars should set off alarm bells and whistles – “red alert, red alert”, “danger, Will Robinson.”

As for those who expressed devotion to the Holy Father – while those are laudable sentiments, the Popes are not little gods on earth. Just read some of the speeches of St. Catherine of Siena addressed to the popes. Look in the Holy Scriptures how St. Paul had to resist St. Peter to his face.

 

[rescath]

and check this out …

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106775

Date: 2007-04-29

Papal Address to Theology Professors

“Listen to the Answers That the Christian Faith Gives Us”

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the Vatican translation of the address Benedict XVI gave March 21 to a delegation of the theological faculty of the University of Tϋbingen, Germany.
…
I would like to make this clearer with an example. An exegete, an interpreter of Sacred Scripture, must explain it as a historical work “secundum artem”, that is, with the scientific rigour that we know in accordance with all the historical elements that require it and with the necessary methodology.

This alone, however, does not suffice for him to be a theologian. If he were to limit himself to doing this, then theology, or at any rate the interpretation of the Bible, would be something similar to Egyptology or Assyriology, or any other specialization.

To be a theologian and to carry out this service for the University, and I dare to say for humanity – hence, the service that is expected of him – he must go further and ask: but is what is said there true? And if it is true, does it concern us? And how does it concern us? And how can we recognize that it is true and concerns us?
…

…Is what is said there true? And if it is true, does it concern us? So Scriptural theology is supposed to question whether the contents of Sacred Scripture are true?

That’s utterly contrary to Traditonal Catholic theology – which accepts as givens, as premises, the data of Revelation and then reasons ABOUT them.

Phenomenology starts within the mind, with the ego in this project or quest for truth, rather than starting with God’s Revelation. Goes back to the Descartes cogito ergo sum, which becomes rationalism and Kantian idealism, which turns into phenomenology, which turns into the theological phenomenology of the Barths, Rahners, von Balthasars, Wojtylas, and Ratzingers.

When you see emphasis on the dignity of human persons, expressions like “project” (I’ll quote that soon), and “encounter with God”, etc. – those are well-known phenomenological catch-phrases, and the writings of Pope Benedict XVI (and before, Joseph Ratzinger) are just dripping with phenomenology.

There’s an article on www.theophenomenon.com about the phenomenological theology of Deus caritas est.

 

[Rach620]

When you see emphasis on the dignity of human persons, expressions like “project” (I’ll quote that soon), and “encounter with God”, etc. – those are well-known phenomenological catch-phrases, and the writings of Pope Benedict XVI (and before, Joseph Ratzinger) are just dripping with phenomenology.

There’s an article on www.theophenomenon.com about the phenomenological theology of Deus caritas est.

I don’t have time to address all your points, but I read the zenit article and think you misunderstood the Holy Father’s emphasis.

The point is not that theology ONLY = questioning everything; that’s only part of it. The point is that for theology to be compelling to everyone as an endeavor, it must address the big questions, and address them in a new way which will be most relevant to our lives. We still must do this within the tradition of the Church, but it is laudable to begin at the beginning, with the huge questions (Who is Christ? What is His relationship with the Father? What is original sin? What is accomplished by the Incarnation?) and strive to answer them within the Tradition of the Church, in a new way which builds upon that Tradition.

For the ever-questioning modern man, it just isn’t enough any more to memorize the catechism and have that be that for theology. We desire, now more than ever, to find a deep and compelling meaning at the heart of our faith which we can see in our lives. I’m not sure what the problem is with that! I guess I’m just too much a child of the JPII era–I’m pretty enthusiastic about this new springtime thing we’ve got going on

I’ll point you to the end of that same article, which sums up Benedict’s thought on the issue:

Only if we ask, and if with our questions we are radical, as radical as theology must be radical over and above any specialization, can we hope to obtain answers to these fundamental questions which concern us all.

First of all, we have to ask questions. Those who do not ask do not get a reply.

But I would add that for theology, in addition to the courage to ask, we also need the humility to listen to the answers that the Christian faith gives us; the humility to perceive in these answers their reasonableness and thus to make them newly accessible to our time and to ourselves.

Thus, not only is the University built up but also humanity is helped to live. For this task, I invoke God’s Blessing upon you.

I read the *Deus Caritas Est *article and enjoyed it very much.

At any rate, **so what **if ‘dignity of the human person,’ ‘project,’ and ‘encounter with God’ are “dripping with phenomenological language”? Is there a problem with the ideas themselves, or just with the fact that the language is connected to a movement you don’t approve of? I’m really not sure how any Catholic can reject, in good faith, the idea of the ‘dignity of the human person’ just because the scholastics didn’t explicitly write about it. (Perhaps that was because they lived in an age where the dignity of the human person was assumed; it didn’t need to be articulated as a theological truth because no one was challenging it. Now we’re living in a time where, sadly, this is challenged on all sides, and we need a compelling explanation of why each person has inviolable dignity.)

 

[BobP123]

The Pope’s thoughts on the Magisterium might be better understood in light of what he has written of the Mass and the Eucharist,that its meaning must never be considered to be of man’s own making but rather something to be accepted from God.
Considering the Pope’s reputation for being an enforcer of liturgical and catechistic orthodoxy, there shouldn’t be much cause for concern.

And we should also remember that a College of Cardinals elected him into Papacy fully realizing his support of the Traditional Rite and traditional values of Catholicism.

So why the anti-Papal position by many of the bishops?

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I love the Holy Father dearly, and I will follow him to the gates of Death, but, to be frank, sometimes he frustrates me. I am a simple person, I like simple words. We should not be sitting here debating about what the Holy Father meant, his whole job is to help us understand. There are many things I disagree with him on, but maybe I’m just to far to the right. I like the Novus Ordo, I also like the Tridentine Mass. The whole point of using Latin, if I’m wrong, someone correct me, was to signify unity in the Church. I think Benedict should try to bring in some unity. I also wish he would just stand up to the radical Muslims and just tell moderate Muslims to represent their faith. I would also, very much, like for him to squash, and I mean SQUASH, dissenters with in the Church. If I was Pope, Hans Kung would be but a faint memory. Then again, God did not pick me.

 

[anthony022071]

I love the Holy Father dearly, and I will follow him to the gates of Death, but, to be frank, sometimes he frustrates me. I am a simple person, I like simple words. We should not be sitting here debating about what the Holy Father meant, his whole job is to help us understand. There are many things I disagree with him on, but maybe I’m just to far to the right. I like the Novus Ordo, I also like the Tridentine Mass. The whole point of using Latin, if I’m wrong, someone correct me, was to signify unity in the Church. I think Benedict should try to bring in some unity. I also wish he would just stand up to the radical Muslims and just tell moderate Muslims to represent their faith. I would also, very much, like for him to squash, and I mean SQUASH, dissenters with in the Church. If I was Pope, Hans Kung would be but a faint memory. Then again, God did not pick me.

The Pope is also the greatest living philosopher. He knows,like the early church fathers, that the Word of God is what the Greeks called "logos’,or creative reason. Faith and reason should supplement each other. So the Pope philosophically defines,articulates,defends and upholds the articles of faith.
This is actually necessary.The Church can’t afford to be intellectually outdone by secular thinkers or dissidents. Everything
ought to be justified on faith and reason.
It was not for nothing that Saint Paul,who was very “learned” and well acquainted with Greek philosophical ideas,was the man chosen by God to spread the faith in Europe. This Pope can trusted in spite of (or even because of) all his philosophizing.

 

[anthony022071]

I believe this to be a “phenomenological” approach to Magisterium. It’s well known that both Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II belong(ed) to a phenomenological theological movement.

The Pope shares the “personalist” philosophy with John Paul 2.
Also,the modern theologian he is probably influenced by the most is Romano Guardini.

 

[KnightErrantJR]

Honestly, I can completely understand wanting to understand the Pope’s words fully, and wanting to make sure that what is being said is what we have been taught and understand, but sometimes I also feel that in this modern era that we are all geared towards a “gotcha” moment, combing over peoples words to look at every possible way they could be interpreted to find any possible flaw in them.

I don’t blame anyone for this tendency, since I fall into it myself far more often than I should. To a degree, I do blame it a bit on the escalation of the “legal” in our society, the fact that often a simple statement isn’t allowed to just stand and is scrutinized by lawyers and judges until we are told that it means something that almost seems contradictory to the initial statement.

I don’t think that Holy Father is trying to undermine the importance of the Magisterium. I do think that in this day and age of mass communication, that every word that the Pope speaks will be looked and and analyzed in every possible light (look at the comments he quoted from the Byzantine Emperor to see the truth in this).