A Thinking Reed

Last Pope Link of the Day

Written by

Lee M.

in

One more…this one’s from Lutheran Uwe Siemon-Netto, religion writer for UPI. Siemon-Netto attempts a debunking of some of the more common myths floating around.

He’s a religious fanatic who hates reason and wants to return to the Dark Ages!

He will doubtless baffle many of his former detractors by stressing the need for a return to reason, which is a central theme of his theology. For Ratzinger, the significance of reason was precisely why John the Evangelist used the word, “Logos,” in referring to Christ in the opening sentence of his Gospel.

“‘Logos’ denotes reason and meaning, but also Word,” Ratzinger wrote. “The God, who is Logos, assures us of the rationality of the world, the rationality of our being, the divine character of reason, and the reasonable character of God, even though God’s rationality surpasses ours immeasurably and appears to us as darkness.”

Ratzinger insists, “Rationality has been the postulate and the condition of Christianity and will remain a European legacy with which we can confront peacefully and positively Islam as well as the great Asian religions.”

[…]

Hence, he continued, “Europe must defend reason. To this extent we must be grateful to secular society and the Enlightenment. It must remain a thorn in our side, as secular society must accept the (Christian) thorn it its side—meaning the founding power of the Christian religion in Europe.”

He’s a foe of ecumenism and a hard-hearted triumphalist!

Coming from the land of the Protestant Reformation, this allegedly doctrinaire Catholic has already made it clear by his very actions the journey out of the “tyranny of relativism,” whose properties are suspended ethical principles, must be an all-Christian enterprise.

Almost unnoticed by the world’s media looking for sensations at the memorial service for John Paul II, Ratzinger quietly communed Brother Roger Schutz, the Swiss Protestant pastor and founder of the vibrant ecumenical community in Taizé, France.

Benedict XVI, arguably the foremost Catholic theologian of our time, has always been an ecumenist, though never a fuzzy one. If he gives the Sacrament to a member of another Christian church—and Schutz was not the only one—he makes it abundantly clear he consider this person a fellow member of the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.

Comments

5 responses to “Last Pope Link of the Day”

  1. Maurice Frontz

    Siemon-Netto mentions Bonhoeffer in the last paragraphs of his report. Did anyone else notice, I wonder, the use of the words “cheap grace” in his homily before the conclave?

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    I am a big fan of “keeping it real” and I appriciate all the posts on the real Benedict, but his career has been problematic in a number of ways. He has led the way in squelching dissent in the Catholic Academy for years. His open feud with Hans Kung, the man I would say is actually the foremost catholic theologian of the post-V2 generation, is common knowledge and still rages unabated.

    Despite perhaps handing out the sacraments to the occasional protestant he has in no way proposed making communion truely open, which is the greatest affront Christian Unity there is. His vision of unity seems to be a church universally submitting themselves to the bishop of Rome, not any sort of meaningful intercommunion or pluralism in liturgy or doctrine.

    So while I thank you for rebutting media’s distortion of his record, I think we need to make sure we keep it completely real.

    Reply
  3. Lee

    Yeah – fair enough. Y’know, I read Kung’s On Being a Christian (at I time when I wasn’t) and I recall being pretty impressed with it. But one thing Kung didn’t make me want to be is a Roman Catholic! Or at least, his book gave no reason (that I can now recall – it’s been a long time) why one would be a RC rather than any other kind of Christian.

    I guess this goes back to something I’ve been thinking about for a while – when we talk about the “unity of the church” what exactly is it that we’re aiming at? For instance, when the ELCA enters into a “full communion” agreement with another church (as they’re now consdering with the UMC) it usually means intercommunion and sharing of clergy. Of course, virtually all mainstream Protestant churches practice intercommunion already (if not outright open communion). But beyond that, what do we want?

    And what do we want out of our relationship with Rome? Just for them to let Protestants commune? Do we want them to give up on the all-male priesthood, the marian dogmas, etc.? What about the historic episcopacy? What do they want from us – to accept those things?

    I guess my point is that it’s good for relationships between churches to be cordial, but we shouldn’t let that paper over honest differences that exist.

    Reply
  4. Joshie

    I may have mentioned this in vague terms before but maybe I should break it down in more detail about what a “Wrightian” (J.L. not N.T.) vision of Christian unity might be.

    1. Any christian, of any church which can be said to be rooted in historical orthodxy (as represented in the creeds, and the Councils of Nicea I, Constatonople I, & Chalcedon) can participate in the sacraments in any other Christian church on the planet. I think this might be expanded to include the Eastern dissident churches as well, due to their antiquity, and possibly Unitarians and Universalists since their roots are in the 16th century Reformed churches. This might also include Quakers but would probably exclude Mormons, JW’s etc.

    2) Easy transfer of membership from one congregation to another. If I want to start going to another congregation of another denomination, I should be able to just get a letter or better yet electronic transfer of membership to my new congregation without having to go though a new membership process to get plugged into the ministries of my new church home.

    3) Greater co-operation in evangelism, relief and health care work, education, economic development, leadership development, and other global missions activity. This might take the form of a global missions fund or series of funds all denominations contribute to and draw from.

    4) Limited clergy sharing. In groups with few real doctrinal differences like Methodists and Episcopalians or Presbyterians and Congregationalists, there should be complete sharing. For other groups there could be limited sharing, at the discrecion of the bishop, presbytery or whatever in a particular locality.

    5) A recognition of the see of Rome as the primus inter pares (nothing more), not only among the bishops per se but among individual church bodies.

    6) All current denominations would maitain their individual seminaries, ecclesiastical bodies, magisteriums (sorry my Latin is rusty) and polity.

    7) A new TRULY ecumenical council to iron all this out and find common ground on which to base this new unity, like the scriptures, Justification by grace through faith, the creeds, love, the Holy Spirit, Christ, etc. There should also be smaller synods to meet in various nations and regions from time to time and perhaps a regular schedule of

    Just my thoughts.

    Reply
  5. Joshie

    …of councils to meet regularly.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Maurice Frontz Cancel reply

More posts