Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: A Dialogue with Rome: part I Message-ID: Date: 24 Nov 89 03:19:36 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: The Big Electric Cat Lines: 78 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I have started to read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's _Principles of Catholic Theology_ (1987, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, ISBN 0-89870-133-3), partly under the influence of some articles in this forum by Chris van Wyck and partly from a desire to choose, if I must have an adversary to stimulate reflection, a *signficant* adversary :-) I may offer other progress reports as I slog through this, but here I offer a simple initial appraisal. Ratzinger immediately states the central problems -- "that of reconciling history with the present" and its Christian-specific instantiation, "which interpretation of our biblical heritage is the valid one." And he suggests that this "objective" problem has "a personal aspect in the question of the apostolic succession." From his table of contents, it appears that these "principles" of theology he offers begin from, or deal carefully with matters of anthroplogy (I almost like the man in spite of myself), and he returns to this anthropological element at the end of the book. Ratzinger is clear, direct and seems to inhabit something at least remotely similar to my own universe. Therefore, this task is promising (to me :-), if I get complaints, I will stop bothering the net about it.) I will note here only his starting point, which is the confessions of the earliest church (as for example Romans 10:9-10) and their evolution into the creeds. He points out that the "I" of the creeds' "I believe in ..." amounts to a collective subject. This is the statement of the *church* more than it is a merely personal statement by individual believers. This is a point I have touched on before, since the modern statement of the Nicene Creed in the Episcopal Prayer book makes it explicit by using "We" instead of the older 1st person singular. Ratzinger reflects this back into the content of the creeds, Trinitarian doctrine, by citing the Jesuit Henri de Lubac, "the mystery of the Trinity has opened to us a totally new perspective: the ground of being is _communio_" Ratzinger says that "this transtemporal subject, the _communio Ecclesiae_, is the mediator between being and time." And here is where I first start to object, not just to this very metaphysical form of statement, but to an insidious notion of "unchangeablility" that seems to derive in his mind from the singular number of the pronoun being used. As if he forgets that the church that he himself has called collective is inherently a plural formation of individuals, he gives this collective a hypostatic monism, saying, "The Church is the locus that gives unity to the content of faith [so far, I go along with him] ... there can be a waxing or waning, a forgetting or remembering, but no recasting of truth in time." Ratzinger's intent is to name (as the Church, properly so-called) a single element in the flux of history which is this "I", this unchanging subject of the Creed: "No arbitrary selection of constants can ensure continued existence. Properly phrased, then, the question for today is whether that memory can continue to exist through which the Church becomes the Church and without which she sinks into nothingness." At this point, my internal metaphysical umpire cries "Foul!" Ratzinger has just begged the most basic of all questions in favor of Greek metaphysics and the "immutability of being" where I see as our only fixed point the non- metaphysical statement that the Church is the Body of Christ. As bodies, we are continually recycling our material components (just as the Church is continually replenished by new members as the old die away.) The unity of "self" in our bodies is an experiential fact, it is "given" -- but the nature of that unity is not at all obvious. In particular, I see Ratzinger claiming that some one element or grouping of elements persists unchanged as Christian "truth." Insofar as God is unchanging, and Christ is God and the Church is the Body of Christ, one *may* be able to come to such a conclusion. But I, for one, am unwilling at the start to concede that "God doesn't change implies the Body of Christ doesn't change" is anything but a Greek word-game, not relevant to the life of an individual Christian or to the Church. I am going to pause at this point. Here, it seems, the battle lines are drawn, according to which side grants the Greek style of philosophy merit. I will, in all cases, prefer a biblical statement to a metaphysical one. That is, more or less, what I *mean* by revelation as a category of thought. I will only reject (my fallible understanding of) a biblical statement when I cannot reconcile it to (my equally fallible understanding of) fact. But I am looking forward to the manner in which Ratzinger will weave anthropology and tradition/authority into his argument. That is where I expect that I may find a constructive reaction to his statement. -- Michael L. Siemon Hell is a different pain, for there is despair. ...!cucard!dasys1!mls But of all pains that lead to salvation, this is the most pain: to see thy beloved suffer. -- Julian of Norwich