COMMENTS, REACTIONS, IDLE THOUGHTS, DISCUSSIONS-

To my mind there is much mysticism in this encyclical. It's easily followed by us lay people, yet it has such depth that one can read and meditate on one sentence over and over again......

Although Joseph Ratzinger had already established his greatness as a thinker, if he hadn't done so, this would have been the decisive document.

How well-blessed we are!

paxvobiscum, 12/9/2007 8:53 PM:

---

---

Thus, the Pope succeeds in bypassing the traditional Roman theology of the pre-Vatican-II Church while staying within the tradition of the Popes that preceded it. He succeeds in recovering the language of Catholicism in its dogmatic truth without philosophical mediation, least of all metaphysical.

Ratzinger uses the Church of the Fathers to seal the renunciation of metaphysics by postwar German theologians, but does so cautiously, and it is significant that he does not get into a discussion of the soul. But he states the fundamental thing: that faith and baptism communicate divine life, according to the expression common to the Fathers, starting with Irinaeus: “God became man so that man may become God.

---

So writes Baget Bozzo in his essay Benedict Confirms the Faith of the Simple. Whilst I appreciate the fact that he is arguing from a purely theological basis, can one unequivocally state that Ratzinger "succeeds in recovering the language of Catholicism in its dogmatic truth without philosophical mediation, least of all metaphysical."? Perhaps I'm not looking with the eyes and experience of a theologian but I certainly did not take that from the text.

Consider the following from Spe Salvi:

---

To imagine ourselves outside the temporality that imprisons us and in some way to sense that eternity is not an unending succession of days in the calendar, but something more like the supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality—this we can only attempt. It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time—the before and after—no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed with joy.

---

Is Ratzinger's thought here not 'metaphysical'? And what about this:

---

His Kingdom is not an imaginary hereafter, situated in a future that will never arrive; his Kingdom is present wherever he is loved and wherever his love reaches us.

---

Surely this too is a metaphysical thought, even if it refers, in the end, to this reality. I know I could be very wrong, as I'm very naive when it comes to theology so I'd appreciate more theologically intelligent comments on the article and his argument about the renunciation of metaphysics by Ratzinger.

Actually, it's amazing how so many people have seen or taken quite different things from the encyclical.

---

Dear PaxVob...

I was gone all day yesterday, so didn't get to see your comment till today. Let me reply by first giving a context to Baget Bozzo's article.

Baget Bozzo is a priest-theologian himself who began his priesthood teaching theology in Genoa as a close associate of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, and has written books about theology. So he knows whereof he speaks, and his categories are clear from the theological and philosophical points of view.

In the article, he uses the term metaphysical in the strict philosophic sense, and describes how postwar German theology became oriented by Karl Rahner’s anthropological (as opposed to metaphysical) approach to theology – beginning with man reaching out to God, rather than the other way around. Even the distinction between ‘transcendent’ and ‘transcendental’ is a Rahner categorization.

I don’t think Baget Bozzo meant at all that Benedict has renounced metaphysics nor mysticism altogether. He said that metaphysics and mysticism are marginal in the arguments used in Spe salvi - marginal, rather than central, that is. And they are, in the sense that the weight of Benedict's argumentation is historical-philosophical-theological, without having to resort to Aquinas or neo-Thomistic metaphysics to carry his ideas across. [And I am very conscious here that Joseph Ratzinger is of the school that believes one must be a philosopehr first before one can be a theologian - even if, alas, many contemporary theologians may not fit the bill - and that therefore, any philosophical arguments he uses have already been filtered through his theology, and are really philsophical-theological arguments.]

As for mysticism, in an encyclical that seeks to reach as wide an audience as possible through reason and the essentials of the faith, any mystic explorations [there, too, Baget Bozzo points out that Benedict continually presupposes the idea of the soul as man's interior castle, in the language of Teresa of Avila, without further exploration} would appear to be superfluous, IMHO. As it is, there is already an infinitude of points to reflect on.

I cited your first quotation from Spe salvi in one of my earlier comments on reactions to the encyclical - wanting to have a Buddhist reaction to it, because that beautiful citation resonates with anyone who has an acquaintance with the Eastern religions.

I also thought it was the most mystical statement in the encyclical, because it is something that can be said only by one who has experienced that ‘plunge into the vastness of being’.

As for your second quotation from the encyclical, I am sure you will agree with me that it is a statement which can be appreciated by anyone who has learned his Christian catechism , i.e., doctrine, even without knowing anything about metaphysics.



P.S. Personally, I must admit that I do not think with the concepts of 'metaphysics' or 'metaphysical' when I reflect on the mysteries of the faith and the religious experience in general. I have a preference for the word 'transcendent' for anything that surpasses man's reason, mystical or metaphysical.

Allow me this Christmas Day indulgence. I think it needs to be said even though it is so obvious as to be taken for granted:




The huge crowds at St. Peter's Square today to listen to the Pope's Christmas message and receive his Christmas blessing, along with the worldwide coverage and instantaneous reporting of the Pope's Christmas Eve Mass and his Christmas message, should give food for thought not only to all the enemies of Christianity - and God - who keep proclaiming or wishing for the 'death'' of both. But also for us Christians.

The phenomenon of the crowds and the coverage tells us that however much the contemporary world - and its very strident advocates of atheism and/or secularity to the complete exclusion of God and religion from the public discourse - denounce or disdain religion, particularly Christianity, history and two millennia of Christian civilization cannot be denied.

Why else does the entire Western world celebrate Christmas as the most important day of the year? And even if the Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu worlds do not celebrate it as such, their secular Westernized societies do, although in a secular way.

Why else does the Western calendar, which was determined by the birth of Christ - and which even the faiths that have their own calendars must also use for practical reasons - continue to be the way we measure our time on earth?

Why else, as Fulton Sheen once memorably underlined, is human history divided into a before Christ and after Christ?

It may be argued that the convention of centuries, dating back to the Roman empire before it fell, has just been too convenient for someone now to come in and change the calendar and the way we date things around.

That does not detract from the fact that the birth of Christ, Son of God, into our world and our history, is without a doubt the single most important event in man's history.

No other event is so universally observed as Christmas - and with the most extravagant fasting man is capable of. Not just the day itself, but as a season, which lasts, depending on the prevailing local culture, anywhere from just the octave between Christmas Day and New Year's Day, to several weeks covering all of Advent to the Epiphany.

In the United States (and probably in other Westernized prosperous countries), businesses and the mass media now consider the Christmas season to start the day after Thanksgiving. Again, the orientation is entirely secular for doing this, but the occasion around which all the interest revolves remains the same: Christmas Day.

Which everyone knows - even if they choose to ignore the fact - is not just an arbitrary date chosen to remind the world of 'peace and good will', but a date that represents the temporal and terrestrial birthday of Christ, Son of God and Savior of mankind.

And yet, politically correct and oh-so-misguided secularism has lately protested that this greatest feast day of the year should not be called 'Christmas' because the word promotes a single religion. Hello! Would the world be celebrating it today if Christianity had not consolidated and assimilated into the birthday of Christ previous pagan celebrations at the time of the winter solstice and given such celebrations a Christian sense?

Fortunately, the war against any religious association for Christmas seemed to be far less obvious this year, at least in the United States where it had been fiercest. Mostly because Christians - who still make up some 80% of the US population - have been fighting back in the media and in their communities and in the courts. And winning.

This says something in a year when some of the biggest non-fiction best-sellers were at least three or four books militantly promoting atheism and virulently anti-God and anti-religion. [Christopher Hitchens’s 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything', Sam Harris’s 'The End of Faith', Richard Dawkins’s 'The God Delusion', Daniel Dennett’s 'Breaking the Spell'. Who will even think that any time from now - in two millennia or even in a hundred years, say - the birthday of any of these God-killers will ever be celebrated by the world the way Christ's birthday is? Just as no one ever thought to make Voltaire's or Nietzsche's or Marx's or Darwin's birthday into a national holiday, even in their countries of origin, let alone a universal one!]

I must add, parenthetically, that as 'best-selling' as these books may have been, I don't think any of them has approached the worldwide sales of the Pope's JESUS OF NAZARETH in its first few weeks out, nor of his two encyclicals which both sold more than a million copies the first week they each came out. Not to mention the phenomenal book sales by American popular Christian evangelizers like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. And the fact that the Bible continues to sell far more than any book in the world, even in Communist China where 6 million were sold in 2006 alone. So, in the face of the atheists and the likes of Dan Brown, let's keep these facts in mind for perspective.

We Christians obviously need to be reminded ourselves from time to time not to overlook the real meaning of the holiday, that Christ's birthday and what his birth means for the world and for every individual's salvation, cannot be overlooked in the frenzy of consumerism, feasting and gift-giving that have come to be part of Christmas celebration - too much a part of it.

And so, it is very salutary and most welcome that the world - including the mass media who virtually shape the prevailing global mentality - pauses and takes note of the Pope's words at Christmas (and also on New Year's Day and at Easter, and to a lesser extent, on most Sundays, to his Angelus message).

Who better than the Pope to remind us of the message of Christ and to remind us of it in words that are always fresh as the Word of Christ is always news, the "good news"?

Not to make an invidious comparison, but simply to point out a media fact: Even if the Dalai Lama is universally esteemed and unanimously iconized in the Western media, not even the Buddhist countries give him and his words the same prominence and place of honor that the Pope occupies.

Of course, that's also because until 'New Age' consciousness entered Western culture in the 1960s, Buddhism was hardly ever thought about in the Western public mind, and that in the Buddhist world, the Dalai Lama represents Tibetan Buddhism, which is perhaps one of the smallest Buddhist denominations in terms of numbers. And most of all, because for centuries, the Pope has been - and continues to be - the world's single universally recognized moral authority.

Not that everyone, Catholics included, agree with the Catholic teachings that oppose the modern world's fondest indulgences. But the perennial continuity of the Seat of Peter itself gives it an authority and authoritativeness that no other temporal authority has. And we Catholics believe that the authority is Christ himself, speaking through his Vicar on earth.

It is important that the Pope continues to be regarded as the world's universal authority - not only the supreme moral authority but also its supreme spiritual leader.

Islam, although its believers may now be as numerous as Christians , does not speak with one voice and has no supreme living authority to hold up to the world.

So, just as every priest prays, in every Mass he celebrates, for God's blessing and protection for the Pope, let us do so as well, as much as he prays for us and for all men as children of God.

I agree Maryjos, the prospect of jeering students was too horrific - these people do not understand our Pope and in their ignorance have turned him into a hate figure. The Pope stands for so much that is good in the world, and his heart is full of love for all people.

I agree too that it would be appropriate to have a space for forum member comments that is free of news items, however worthy. A discussion can be killed off by the insertion of news on a completely different topic. One gets the impression of people talking across the dinner table about different subjects. In the end you just give up.

Love your new signatures! Sixpence is so lovely!!

Wasn't it heartening today to see the students at the General Audience! They were waving huge banners in support of Papa. One banner was from the Catholic society at La Sapienza: Communione e Liberazione - correct me if I'm wrong.
There were louder and longer shouts of "Benedetto" and Papa was smiling and looked both pleased and slightly embarrassed. I wish I'd been there - I'd have been hoarse afterwards, but at least now I know where I can get very effective throat pastilles!!!!!!!

It was altogether a very happy audience today - oh and the American choir singing "Christus Vincit" - I love that! And a little bird told me that Papa does too!

The continued catechesis on Augustine was learned yet easily assimilated.

I should probably have written this on the Audience thread, but it is meant to be my own musings.....

Luff to all! Mary x

maryjos, 1/16/2008 11:46 PM:

---

Wasn't it heartening today to see the students at the General Audience! They were waving huge banners in support of Papa. One banner was from the Catholic society at La Sapienza: Communione e Liberazione - correct me if I'm wrong.
There were louder and longer shouts of "Benedetto" and Papa was smiling and looked both pleased and slightly embarrassed. I wish I'd been there - I'd have been hoarse afterwards, but at least now I know where I can get very effective throat pastilles!!!!!!!

It was altogether a very happy audience today - oh and the American choir singing "Christus Vincit" - I love that! And a little bird told me that Papa does too!

The continued catechesis on Augustine was learned yet easily assimilated.

I should probably have written this on the Audience thread, but it is meant to be my own musings.....

Luff to all! Mary x

---

It was a very loud and happy audience. Quite a bit of singing too. I think the were chanting something at the beginning that almost sounded like 'libertad' I wish they would have shown Papa's reactions to the singing and chanting. They did it once though...

EDIT: It seems they were chanting FREEDOM

From Asia News:

---

"Freedom, Freedom!": the shout raised by a group of university students of the Communion and Liberation movement, at the beginning of today's general audience, met with warm applause from the six thousand persons present in the Paul VI audience hall, and was an echo of the decision Benedict XVI took yesterday not to go to the La Sapienza university of Rome. The decision was due to opposition from a small group of teachers and students, against the invitation that had been extended to him to participate in the inauguration of the academic year. "So there are three places where the pope cannot go: Moscow, Beijing, and the university of Rome", commented one of the young people present at the audience. "If Benedict does not go to La Sapienza, La Sapienza comes to Benedict", read one of the banners that the young people raised.

---

SOURCE: www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11263&size=A

Lori - I watched the encore of the audience on EWTN last evening and didn't record it - wish I had! It was an historical audience and one that should often be shown, even if not in its entirety the parts where the students were singing and shouting. I didn't know what it was they were chanting either. And I do agree - CTV should show Papa's reaction to the various choirs that sing and bands that play for him - especially the Bavarian ones. I know he really appreciates it all. I'd love to see his face at those times.
I may buy a DVD of yesterday's audience from CTV, because it really should be kept.

VIS news today reported Cardinal Bertone's letter to La Sapienza and printed the address that Papa would have given. We have it all here on the forum too, of course. What beautiful, sensible and intellectual words they were from Joseph Ratzinger -as always! I wonder how many red faces there are amongst those students now and, even more so, amongst the professors who should have known better.


Whoops - forgot to say that I'm so pleased you are using the banner Wulfrune sent you! It looks very smart!

maryjos, 1/17/2008 6:04 PM:

---

I thought I'd put my thoughts here. These students have caused a scandal which almost makes me ashamed to have been an undergraduate. I don't know what qualifications young people need these days to get into universities in various countries. But probably they don't need to be quite as well educated as we were in my day. I don't mean to sound big-headed. In England the requirements for a university place CAN be [depending on the university or ex-polytechnic] as low a two E grades at A Level. When I became an undergraduate, over forty years ago, the requirements were much higher than that. I don't know anything about the Italian secondary education system, so I must not even try to comment. All I can say is that it seems as if these students are not students at all, have not thought through their knowledge to arrive at opinions. They just see black or white. In this case: the Pope represents Christianity and belief in God. They don't believe in God, so they start a loud protest.
The taking over of lecture halls, grabbing of microphones is all so reminiscent of Tuebingen that it's quite frightening. That was in 1968, when I presume students were more thoughtful, but the whole political panorama of Europe was different then, with Communism still being a dominant force.
I don't think there's any comparison with the Pope's visit to Turkey. I feel that he knew he would meet civilized members of both the secular government and the religious hierarchy there. And he did. There was mutual respect. He did look rather uncertain and wary when he first arrived, but by the end of the visit was relaxed.
This university visit would have been different. He knew he'd have been dealing with people who didn't know what they were actually shouting about. I'm amazed that the professors supported these students. And when you think that this university was founded by a Pope, Boniface XIII, in 1303, you almost despair......

---

First, thanks in regards to the banner I taped the audience and wish I knew how to transfer it to YouTube video

I agree that Turkey and La Sapienza are two different environments/situations. I had said so on the NEWS thread. I was puzzled about the quote from a commentor the Benedict is "sending the wrong signal," as if he was backing down or scared off and that why he didn't go. So I sited Turkey. But you make a good point. These students were definitely going to try and make things as ugly as they could be. There are two articles about what the reason was for the cancellation on the NEWS thread and we can see that they were going to bus in other people.

Perhaps they have forgotten who founded their school, I agree Mary, its sad. Ha! I hope those young people actually listened to the speech, it'll probably have been the first time they've ever heard something of the Pope's in its entirety.

The Pope at La Sapienza

Actually, since Papa did not go to La Sapienza, his speech probably was listened to and read far more closely and by far more people than if he had gone and presented it himself. I think it was quite clever of him to send it there.

Regarding the demonstration that wasn't, it was SO 1968 that those professors and students should be kicked out of La Sapienza for being completely out of touch with today's world, not to mention being total idiots for not getting Papa's Galileo comment straight. Do they deserve to be in a university if they can't read?

I went to college in the sixties and had to walk over and around unwashed, unkempt, foul-mouthed protesters, sitting or lying in doorways to our classroom buildings. They were supposedly for racial equality, sexual equality, gay equality. They were against the war, against the government, against the military, against anyone in authority, against their parents, against the past, against learning, and so on and so on. Their cry was "freedom", to do what THEY wanted, when they wanted, and how they wanted, no matter who got hurt in the process.

I was disgusted then and still am now. When I first read that such a protest was being planned at La Sapienza, I thought that Papa wouldn't go. He closed his books, packed his bags, and left Tuebingen when all this happened in 1968 and I couldn't imagine that, at 80 years old and as pope, he was going to want to go through that again, especially if it could mean that someone might get hurt in all the turbulence. I have always thought that you can not reason with an unreasonable person. A screaming mob is unreasonable. You can't stand in front of them and persuade them with reason and truth. Even Jesus couldn't do it. He stood before them in silence and they screamed to Pilate to crucify him. Papa was right to deny this mob a chance to do more harm and to get their faces on TV.

Absolutely, benefan!

And did hyou read his text about what a University's purpose really is? I hope those protestors were embarassed ... they should obviously know they are not living up to expectation.

The Holy Father's address was so reasoned, thorough and gentle ... the way the "professor" always is ... just the opposite of the students and those professors with them.

Benefan and Papabear: Amen to everything you have written.
Thank God last Thursday is over and that we [and those at La Sapienza who should have known better] have the text of Papa's address. That will never go away; we can read it over and over again.

Talk about electric! Just seeing the photos, the enthusiastic faces and the smile on our Papa's face ... just makes me want to fly over to Rome to be with everyone. And it must have affected him ... how many times have we ever heard something personal inserted into his remarks about his life, however brief - his reference to his university professor years and his love of students and respectful dialogue? We hardly ever hear him insert "me" into his messages.

I also loved seeing that it was a peaceful, respectufl gathering ... and joyful ... Thanks, Teresa for the links the Avennire and Corriere della Serra photo galleries ... the crowd in Milan! And the joyful singing and even dancing!

I think it all shows how proud we are to have this Pope - a gentle, firm Pastor with a loving heart. And, as we all know, with us on this Forum, anyway, every day is Papa Day.

Dear Teresa,

In all charity, I believe you read too much into that quotation, which Father General Nicolas said that a fellow Jesuit whispered into his ear when giving his congratulations on his election.

After having read a short bio on Fr Nicolas and his living with the poor, he probably is not looking forward to as one journalist put it "exchanging his sashimi for spaghetti." I don't see it at all in the context of "only clergy" have the mission to look after the poor. In fact, it is everyone's responsibility and we know it as Christians.

I wouldn't read so much int the comment.

I just got back from our local March for Life - a very good example of how the laity care for the poor - the unborn, the dignity of the sick and the dying. It was very gratifying to be with so many people making their voices heard.

Aloha from Hawaii,
Linda

I did not 'read too much' into the comment. I said it was sanctimonious, and it is - especially in the context of saying it, at the moment of his election, to Fr. Nicolas, whose apostolate in Asia has been mostly with the poor!

What an inspiring account of the peaceful and prayerful protest that brought about a just decision by the government to return the nunciature to Church authorities, and out of respect for the Holy Father.

Shades of Spe Salvi ... there may be hope for dialogue and justice. And I'm sure that our Holy Father and his calm firmness had a lot to do with it.

I think since both 'forms' are acceptable now - receiving the Host in the hands, or on the tongue - it really comes down to personal preference.

As I grew up receiving Communion on the tongue - and on my knees at a Communion rail - I have never taken the Host into my hands, I continue to receive it on the tongue, and whenever I have the chance to kneel while receiving it, I kneel - even without a rail.

Obviously, I am biased, but I subscribe to all the arguments in Dominus est.

Dearest Maryjos ...

I had a very long reply with citations in our US Catholic Catchism and our US Conference of Catholic Bishops pastoral resource, Introduction to the Order of Mass ... all this re the intinction method you mentioned ... and after I hit REPLY .... it was gone!!!

Oh, reminds of St Thomas Aquinas ... at the end of his life, with all his voluminous writings and even hymns, he said that all his work was rubbish compared to knowing Christ the Lord ... oh, well, it's gone ..

But in summary, communion is of course, allowed either on the tongue or in the hand at the preference of the communicant. Intinction is allowed, but only in Dioceses where it has been introduced and then the Eucharist is never placed in the hands of the communicant. The Body of Christ would be dipped into the Precious Blood and then given to the communicant on the tongue. The communicant is never to be allowed to intinct the Body of Christ into the chalice.

I am very comfortable with taking communion in the hand and focus on the great gift to be received, by the grace of God. As in St Thomas Aquinas' famous hymn, " all that senses cannot fathom "

Aloha ...