The use of Jesus vs Christ

[mdcpensive1]

When reading an article the other day by this guy called Cardinal Ratzinger , he made an interesting case for the use of the name Jesus by non-Catholics instead of “The Christ”. This is because as he says, the use of “Christ” cannotes “authority” whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion. So Jesus us more personal and Christ is more authoritarian.
I am not suggesting at all that we not say the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, but I was wondering if this is an insite into the nature of Protestantism. I had to think about this for a while.

 

[onjac]

Do you have the link to the article? It feels like I’ve read this before.

 

[patrick457]

When reading an article the other day by this guy called Cardinal Ratzinger , he made an interesting case for the use of the name Jesus by non-Catholics instead of “The Christ”. This is because as he says, the use of “Christ” cannotes “authority” whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion. So Jesus us more personal and Christ is more authoritarian.
I am not suggesting at all that we not say the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, but I was wondering if this is an insite into the nature of Protestantism. I had to think about this for a while.

Come to think of it, ‘Christ’ is originally a title: “the Anointed.”

 

[Taestron]

Come to think of it, ‘Christ’ is originally a title: “the Anointed.”

I can’t speak for all Protestants, but in my experience Christ is not thought of as a title. Although no one would actually say this, it is sort of used as last name. I’m not sure that this says anything about the nature of Protestantism or not.

 

[patrick457]

I can’t speak for all Protestants, but in my experience Christ is not thought of as a title. Although no one would actually say this, it is sort of used as last name. I’m not sure that this says anything about the nature of Protestantism or not.

That isn’t really new. ‘Jesus Christ’ was originally understood as ‘Jesus the Anointed’ (i.e. Messiah) but soon enough ‘Christ’ began to be considered as His other proper name. Which of course led to the modern idea of it being a surname.

Which begs the question: who did it belong to? Was Joseph and Mary actually Mr. and Mrs. Christ? And for the record, did Jesus have a middle name as well (Jesus H. Christ)? And I guess Paul was actually Japanese (or Hungarian) - I mean, ‘Christ Jesus’?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Greeks like their titles. Just as Christ and Theotokos. Of course the Theotokos is Mary, but in the Greek Churches she is referred to as the Theotokos more often. Jesus too is referred to more as Christ.

 

[DavidFilmer]

… whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion.

This is true, as evidenced by the (non-Biblical) protestant catch-phrase, “*personal *Lord and Savior.” To most protestants, everyone has a “personal” relationship - a thousand Christians have a thousand different personal relationships.

Catholics believe that Jesus has a relationship with all of humanity, and we individually participate in this relationship (primarily through the Church). Catholics cannot ordinarily obtain salvation in isolation (we can’t Baptize ourselves).

 

[patrick457]

The Greeks like their titles. Just as Christ and Theotokos. Of course the Theotokos is Mary, but in the Greek Churches she is referred to as the Theotokos more often. Jesus too is referred to more as Christ.

“Christ [our] God,” ain’t it? I do notice that the East has a tendency to directly call Jesus ‘God’ more than the West does (where the preferred title is apparently ‘Lord’). I’m guessing the Arian controversy had something to do with it but I’m not totally sure.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Christ [our] God,” ain’t it? I do notice that the East has a tendency to directly call Jesus ‘God’ more than the West does (where the preferred title is apparently ‘Lord’). I’m guessing the Arian controversy had something to do with it but I’m not totally sure.

Probably. The Liturgies of the East were written during the time of influence of Arianism. The West, especially today, seems to be more reactionary to the Reformation. So even if there were references prior to Trent, it is quite likely that the language to the Church has changed to become more counter-reformation. Although I am surprised that Trent nor Pope Paul VI didn’t inject a Marian prayer into the Mass the way the East has always had one right after the Anaphora.

 

[thistle]

I can’t speak for all Protestants, but in my experience Christ is not thought of as a title. Although no one would actually say this, it is sort of used as last name. I’m not sure that this says anything about the nature of Protestantism or not.

I was a Methodist before and I disagree with your comments.
We never thought nor were taught that Christ was a surname. Christ is a title.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When reading an article the other day by this guy called Cardinal Ratzinger , he made an interesting case for the use of the name Jesus by non-Catholics instead of “The Christ”. This is because as he says, the use of “Christ” cannotes “authority” whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion. So Jesus us more personal and Christ is more authoritarian.
I am not suggesting at all that we not say the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, but I was wondering if this is an insite into the nature of Protestantism. I had to think about this for a while.

mdcpensive
The distinction has become common place among Biblical Scholars and Theologians since at least the mid 1900s (possibly earlier). However the distinction is based on something other than what the above Cardinal with the unusual name is on about.

The typical phrase that explains the distinction is “the Jesus of history versusr the Christ of faith.”

In otherwords, we moderns have a problem that previous generations have not had to look at before. The title “Christ” is now generally seen as applied to Jesus in hindsight after the Resurrection. It is a title of faith not of fact. It comes from the Church not from history.
It represents the great hiatus that many christians find between Jesus in the Gospels and the Church today and the difficulties we have in reconciling these two re such things as dogma, sacraments etc.

So there is a bit of a connection here re what Card Ratz is saying (Protestants don’t have all the Biblical “extra’s” that we have) but its not quite the same as the scholarly debates I am trying to explain here.

There are also informal “Jesus-ians” (like Christ-ians) also on the same basis as the distinction I have drawn above.

One Rudolf Bultmann seems to have been the first to swing this sword.
Also, you may have heard of the Domincan theologian Edward Schillebeeckx who rode this theme with his two volume Opus “Jesus” and “Christ” in the 1980s.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Do you have the link to the article? It feels like I’ve read this before.

I don’t know if there is a link, but I read it from the book “Letter and Spirit” the hermaneutic of continuity, Volume #3. These articles are deep in many respects.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Come to think of it, ‘Christ’ is originally a title: “the Anointed.”

The Jews understood Him to be the “Messiah” and they wanted Him to be their king in the temporal order. They wanted a leader with all that that entails, and not just a personal relationship. This is why I started this thread although a personal relationship has nothing wrong with it except when it excludes the authority of the Church.

 

[mdcpensive1]

This is true, as evidenced by the (non-Biblical) protestant catch-phrase, “*personal *Lord and Savior.” To most protestants, everyone has a “personal” relationship - a thousand Christians have a thousand different personal relationships.

Catholics believe that Jesus has a relationship with all of humanity, and we individually participate in this relationship (primarily through the Church). Catholics cannot ordinarily obtain salvation in isolation (we can’t Baptize ourselves).

You are right. From what I have experienced non-Catholics don’t stress the “Body of Christ” much but go after a “personal salvation” theme. Because of this they don’t see the value of a Church that exists for the means of salvation.
mdcpensive1

 

[mdcpensive1]

mdcpensive
The distinction has become common place among Biblical Scholars and Theologians since at least the mid 1900s (possibly earlier). However the distinction is based on something other than what the above Cardinal with the unusual name is on about.

The typical phrase that explains the distinction is “the Jesus of history versusr the Christ of faith.”

In otherwords, we moderns have a problem that previous generations have not had to look at before. The title “Christ” is now generally seen as applied to Jesus in hindsight after the Resurrection. It is a title of faith not of fact. It comes from the Church not from history.
It represents the great hiatus that many christians find between Jesus in the Gospels and the Church today and the difficulties we have in reconciling these two re such things as dogma, sacraments etc.

So there is a bit of a connection here re what Card Ratz is saying (Protestants don’t have all the Biblical “extra’s” that we have) but its not quite the same as the scholarly debates I am trying to explain here.

There are also informal “Jesus-ians” (like Christ-ians) also on the same basis as the distinction I have drawn above.

One Rudolf Bultmann seems to have been the first to swing this sword.
Also, you may have heard of the Domincan theologian Edward Schillebeeckx who rode this theme with his two volume Opus “Jesus” and “Christ” in the 1980s.

I think that you understand the meaning of this thread and I thank you for your response. I do recognize the names Bultmann and Schillebeeckx because I have a Jerome Biblical Comentary that quotes these guys a bunch.

From what you are saying, it seems like we have the benefit of prayer and reflection over time to come to a fuller understanding of what “Christ” means to us. It seems our faith can be complex at times that we can approach topics from different points of view, which gives theologians and biblical scholars job security.
mdcpensive1

 

[patrick457]

mdcpensive
The distinction has become common place among Biblical Scholars and Theologians since at least the mid 1900s (possibly earlier). However the distinction is based on something other than what the above Cardinal with the unusual name is on about.

The typical phrase that explains the distinction is “the Jesus of history versusr the Christ of faith.”

In otherwords, we moderns have a problem that previous generations have not had to look at before. The title “Christ” is now generally seen as applied to Jesus in hindsight after the Resurrection. It is a title of faith not of fact. It comes from the Church not from history.
It represents the great hiatus that many christians find between Jesus in the Gospels and the Church today and the difficulties we have in reconciling these two re such things as dogma, sacraments etc.

So there is a bit of a connection here re what Card Ratz is saying (Protestants don’t have all the Biblical “extra’s” that we have) but its not quite the same as the scholarly debates I am trying to explain here.

There are also informal “Jesus-ians” (like Christ-ians) also on the same basis as the distinction I have drawn above.

One Rudolf Bultmann seems to have been the first to swing this sword.
Also, you may have heard of the Domincan theologian Edward Schillebeeckx who rode this theme with his two volume Opus “Jesus” and “Christ” in the 1980s.

Actually, the whole ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ thing started long before Rudolf Bultmann. And the ironic thing is, Bultmann actually spearheaded the ‘No Quest’ period: he was intensely skeptical regarding the historical Jesus and argued that the only thing we can know about Jesus is the “thatness” (German: Dass) of His existence and very little else.

 

[Pheonix]

When reading an article the other day by this guy called Cardinal Ratzinger , he made an interesting case for the use of the name Jesus by non-Catholics instead of “The Christ”. This is because as he says, the use of “Christ” cannotes “authority” whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion. So Jesus us more personal and Christ is more authoritarian.
I am not suggesting at all that we not say the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, but I was wondering if this is an insite into the nature of Protestantism. I had to think about this for a while.

I think this idea lends itself to the “Love Jesus, Hate Religion” mindset some Christians hold. Such Christians are the ones you see proclaiming things like “all that matters is having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” or “I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior; I don’t follow a religion of any sort.” From personal experience, these Christians have typically been either Baptist or non-denominational.

In that sense, I can agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s idea that such Christians tend to use “Jesus” more as a way to stress the importance of their “relationship over religion” idea. First names tend to give off an aura of personal connection than titles.

I don’t, however, necessarily agree with the idea that such Christians have an aversion to using “Christ” because it has some authoritarian-edge to it. I would admit to the “relationship over religion” Christians probably using “Jesus” more than “Christ,” but I’ve still seen them refer to Jesus as “the Christ.”

 

[Todd_Easton]

When reading an article the other day by this guy called Cardinal Ratzinger , he made an interesting case for the use of the name Jesus by non-Catholics instead of “The Christ”. This is because as he says, the use of “Christ” cannotes “authority” whereas non-Catholics stress a “personal” relationship in their religion. So Jesus us more personal and Christ is more authoritarian.
I am not suggesting at all that we not say the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, but I was wondering if this is an insite into the nature of Protestantism. I had to think about this for a while.

In his epistles, St. Paul used the name “Christ” and the compound names “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” 8 times more often than the name “Jesus.” I guess St. Paul was an authoritarian Catholic.