Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Resurrection of the dead is only “symbolically” proclaimed in the Bible, says this author.

Here’s a little word picture for consideration especially by our Roman Catholic friends for whom “intellectual inconsistency” is a dirty word and a dangerous concept.

I have come across this, because it was brought to my attention by a Reformed brother who I met through a Reformed discussion board. He was concerned that this particular author (whom I will cite at length) simply did not believe in the Resurrection. Not the Resurrection of Christ, nor the physical resurrection of the body at the end of the age.

Here is a key passage from our author in question:
The foregoing reflections may have made a little clearer what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval: their aim is to tell men that they, themselves, live on; not by virtue of their own power but because they are known and loved by God in such a way that they can no longer perish.

In contrast to the dualistic conception of immortality expressed in the Greek body-soul schema, the biblical formula of immortality through awakening is trying to impart a collective and dialogic conception of immortality: the essential part of man, the person remains; that which has ripened in the course of this earthly existence of corporeal spirituality and spiritualized corporeality goes on existing in a different fashion. It goes on existing because it lives in God’s memory. And because it is the man himself who will live, not an isolated soul, the element of human fellowship is also part of the future; for this reason the future of the individual man will only then be full when the future of humanity is fulfilled.
Now, this seems to me as a classic liberal re-definition of the physical resurrection, and a lot like a kind of pantheism. But I don’t want to rush to judgment. And of course, in the spirit of this blog, we of course intend to provide context, and lots of it.

My dilemma is that I have not read huge amounts from this author, though I likely will read more in the future.

But I do have one of the books in question, and so I want to back up from that previous paragraph, a few pages, and to provide, at some length, the “foregoing reflections” from this author, just to be sure we are not misquoting him, or misunderstanding him, or taking him out of context.
We have discovered anew the indivisibility of man; we live our corporeality with a new intensity and feel it as the indispensable mode of realization of the one being of man. From this angle we can understand afresh the biblical message, which promises immortality not to a separated soul but to the whole man. Such feelings have in this [20th] century made evangelical theology in particular turn emphatically against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which is wrongly regarded as a Christian idea too. In reality, so it is said, this idea expresses a thoroughly un-Christian dualism; the Christian faith knows only of the waking of the dead by God’s power. But doubts arise at once here: the Greek doctrine of immortality may well be problematical, but is not the biblical assertion still more incapable of fulfillment for us? The unity of man, fine, but who can imagine, on the basis of our present-day image of the world, a resurrection of the body?
“The unity of man, fine.” So this concept of “the indivisibility of man,” “the unity of man,” is what is established by this writer in what precedes. And then, he begins to discuss what implications this has for the Christian doctrine of “the resurrection of the body.” Continuing with this thought:
This resurrection would also imply – or so it seems, at any rate – a new heaven and a new earth; it would require immortal bodies needing no sustenance, and a completely different condition of matter. But is this not all completely absurd, quite contrary to our understanding of matter and its modes of behavior, and therefore hopelessly mythological? Well I think that in fact one can only arrive at an answer if one enquires carefully into the real intentions of the biblical statement and at the same time considers anew the relation between the biblical and the Greek ideas.
Now this is an idea that we can all embrace. We must “enquire carefully into the real intentions of the biblical statement” no doubt mentioned above that immortality is promised “not to a separated soul but to the whole man.” Again, not having read this author, I’m not sure what he means by this statement, but if we assume his prior analysis about “the whole man” is correct, then what follows is certain to be understandable in that light. Right?
For their encounter with each other [Greek and biblical ideas about immortality of man and the resurrection of the body] has modified both conceptions and thus overlaid the original intentions of both approaches with a new combined view which we must first remove if we want to find our way back to the beginning. First of all, the hope of the resurrection of the dead simply represents the basic form of the biblical hope of immortality; it appears in the New Testament not really as a supplement to a preceding and independent immortality of the soul but as the fundamental statement on the fate of man.
Amen and amen!
There were, it is true, in late Jewish teachings hints of immortality on the Greek pattern, and this was probably one of the reasons why very soon the all-embracing scope of the idea of resurrection in the Graeco-Roman world was no longer grasped. Instead, the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul and the biblical message of the resurrection of the dead was each understood as half the answer to the question of the fate of man and the two were added together. It was thought that the already existing Greek fore-knowledge about the immortality of the soul had added to it by the Bible the revelation that at the end of the world bodies would be awoken too, to share henceforth for ever the fate of the soul – damnation or bliss.

As opposed to this, we must grasp the fact that originally it was not a question of two complementary ideas; on the contrary, we are confronted with two different total views, which cannot simply be added together: the image of man, of God and of the future, is in each case quite different, and thus at bottom each of the two views can only be understood as an attempt at a total answer to the question of human fate.

The Greek conception is based on the idea that man is composed of two intrinsically alien substances, one of which (the body) perishes, while the other (the soul) is in itself imperishable and therefore goes on existing in its own right independent of any other beings. Indeed, it was only in the separation from its essentially alien body, so it was thought, that the soul came into its own.
So here we have from our author an articulation of “the Greek conception” of the immortality of the soul. This seems accurate enough. Now for his analysis of the biblical conception:
The biblical train of thought, on the other hand, presupposes the undivided unity of man [there we have that idea again, from above]; for example, Scripture contains no word denoting only the body (separated and distinguished from the soul), while conversely in the vast majority of cases the word soul too means the whole corporeally existing man; the few places where a different view can be discerned hover to a certain extent between Greek and Hebrew thinking and in any case by no means abandon the old view. The awakening of the dead (not of bodies!) of which Scripture speaks is thus concerned with the salvation of the one, undivided man, not just with the fate of one (so far as possible secondary) half of man [italics and parentheses in original]. It now also becomes clear that the real heart of the faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible. What then, is the real content of the hope symbolically proclaimed in the Bible in the shape of the resurrection of the dead? I think that this can best be worked out by means of a comparison with the dualistic conception of ancient philosophy [bold emphasis added].
Aha, here is a reason to be cautious with this writer.

In conjunction with the statement approaching pantheism that I noted at the beginning, this statement too ought to raise some red flags, especially for our perceptive readers (Sean Patrick, Paul Hoffer, David Waltz) who do not tolerate “inconsistency”. (Of course, these guys, being as perceptive and as well-read as they claim to be, almost certainly have seen through my ploy by this point, and are ready with exceptions to their doctrine of “inconsistency”.)

Like the fabled Peter Lampe, who does not believe that Paul wrote the “Pastoral Epistles,” this writer says that “the hope of the resurrection of the dead” is only “symbolically proclaimed” in the Bible.

We should rightfully be cautious of this man who thinks of the resurrection of the dead as being merely “symbolically proclaimed in the Bible.”

More to follow.

33 comments:

Rhology said...

Can we guess who the author is? I guess it's Raymond Brown.

Of course, it'd be crazy if it were a Pope. Maybe I'm way off.

John Bugay said...

Lol, provocateur ... Yes, he would be thought of as a flaming liberal.

John Bugay said...

If Jae or Matthew Bellisario want to comment on this thread, by the way, they first must respond to questions that they've been asked (but refused to answer in the past).

Question for Jae.

Question for Matthew Bellisario.

steelikat said...

google.com

John Bugay said...

Thanks steelikat. I'm sure someone will soon avail himself of that resource.

Henry said...

I hate to break it to you brother, but it looks like Matthew Bellisario hasn't given this blog or you a thought for a month now.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/09/beggars-all-john-bugay-ex-catholics.html

Rhology said...

Henry,

Believe me, the blog is better for his absence. Nobody's shedding any tears. In fact, since he'll never dare answer the question for him, the requirement that he answer it before he can comment is in effect a ban.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Resurrection of the dead is only “symbolically” proclaimed in the Bible, says this author."

Really?

This author is engaging in private interpretation or private judgment.

John Bugay said...

Well, I'll give you a little hint. This author is one of those dreaded scholars.

Carrie said...

Wow.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I went over to Bellisario's blog to see what he had to write about you, John.

To be damned by him is high praise. You're lucky John to be disliked by Bellisario

John Bugay said...

Hi Carrie :-)

Truth, his praise cannot be worth much because he damns everybody. Law of supply and demand. But I know, it's good that he doesn't come back.

steelikat said...

To be fair to the text, his conclusions probably do follow from his premises, so it his premises we should examine. Some of it seemed about as clear as mud to me, but here is my interpretation:

Premise 1: The Greek conception of man is dualistic.

Premise 2: The OT biblical idea is holistic not dualistic.

Conclusion 1: To really understand the bible and to really fully understand the resurrection we must get rid of all that greek stuff.

Premise 3: The NT description of resurrection contains some greek dualism.

Conclusion 2: The NT description must be symbolic (or partly symbolic?)

Like I say it's about as clear as mud to me but I'm guessing that he's saying something like that. He does affirm elsewhere that a man is essentially corporeal (and a unity) so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not denying the physical resurrection--he's just denying a dualistic greek philosophical understanding of the physical resurrection. Whatever that means.

The critical premise is number 3. If the NT description of the resurrection sounds in any way like greek philosophy it seems to me that must be because the pagan greeks got something right, not because the NT description is in any way symbolic.

David Waltz said...

Hi John and steelikat,

I don't need Google for this one, I own the book! The author is Joseph Ratzinger (before he became a Cardinal, and before he became Pope Benedict XVI). The book from which the English was translated from, was titled, Einf├╝hrung in das Christentum, and was first published in 1968. The first English translation by J. R. Foster appeared in 1969; the English edition I own is by Ignatius Press, 1990 (Introduction to Christianity), and in this edition, the quotes that John provided are found in "PART THREE: THE SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH, II. TWO MAJOR QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ARTICLES ON THE SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH, 2. 'The Resurrection of the body'", pages 268-278.


Grace and peace,

David

natamllc said...

Mortal man is trapped in his own head!

Remember, we were born a dirty being, Adam, from the dust of the earth, that is, Who then God breathed upon and he became a "living" soul in His creation so that there is a Federal head of the image and likeness of the Immortal Creator!

He was up to no good? No, but by this means He trapped the devil/s! We should take stalk in the fact that the Devil, Satan, that old dragon, is still the god of this world's way of thinking, then and now!

The writer writes: But doubts arise at once here: the Greek doctrine of immortality may well be problematical, but is not the biblical assertion still more incapable of fulfillment for us?

If only this writer were "enlightened" with the Spirit, thus being born again, he could read and understand what he says is so true there with the Greeks then and now! Yet, without the Spirit of Grace and Truth, one can only look at what he sees and tell us "truthfully" what it is he sees! For this writer does nothing new as all men have seen people die and then wonder, "what's that unnatural event"? Hmmmmm, sooner or later, me too! I wonder if I can do something to attain immortality? I certain am motivated by my father or mother, whose body I just laid to rest, dust to dust and ashes to ashes! Oh my!

Jesus said it and I believe it, for myself and it is still true about all creatures both old and "New", this:

Mat 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
Mat 19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Mat 19:20 The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mat 19:22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
Mat 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Mat 19:27 Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?"
Mat 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mat 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Mat 19:30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.


Talk about dear mortal, Peter, the first Pope of Rome unseating himself before he was ever seated upon that see! He too, must be born again! :)

steelikat said...

Some evolution in his thinking apparently occurred since then:

1969: "The Resurrection cannot be an historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is"

2009: "The Resurrection is a real historical event, borne out by many authoritative witnesses."

John Bugay said...

David Waltz, I am glad that someone recognized that. As I mentioned, I'm working off an article that referred me to that section. But have you gathered that Ratzinger, a liberal scholar at the time, is doing anything but denying a physical resurrection?

Steelikat -- what is your source for the 2009 item? The article I referenced noted a "jesuitical-style" distinction between Ratzinger's personal beliefs and his "official teaching".

natamllc said...

David W.

I attempted to post at your blog and a message came up and it said my comment was too large.

I am somewhat reluctant but will take courage and say I am on guard about you.

Tell us, what do you believe? Is Jesus the Christ and are you born again?

You have a volume of knowledge, but I sense you do not have the Spirit of Christ???

And if you do not have the Spirit of Christ then you are not of His Body and there will not be a resurrection for you to the Everlasting Holy Kingdom of God when you pass from this natural life!

I know it is a mystery why God elects some to Eternal Life. So, I am in no way asking you to do "anything". There is nothing we can do to save ourself except accept the Word of Life Whom God sent.

His name is Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit vindicated Him before the Father just after His resurrection to return to His Glorious Throne from which He was sent to be the Savior of the world of God's elect abiding in this fallen world.

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Heb 2:11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,
Heb 2:12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise."
Heb 2:13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."
Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.



These are the Words of Life given to us and recorded for our learning and admonition:

Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

steelikat said...

John,

google.com again:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesus_resurrection_was_a_real_historical_event_pope_proclaims/

I like to call the resurrection "corporeal," as I think a distinction ought to be made between the perceptible corporeal world of classical thought and the mathematical physical universe of modern science. How are the two connected? I don't know; it's a good question.

steelikat said...

You can't paste links in here, can you?

What I pasted above + this:

ection_was_a_real_historical_event_pope_proclaims

Rhology said...

Here's the link.

natamllc said...

Steelikat,

I don't believe it for one moment!

Had he been born again to enter into the True Senses of the True Church by the Spirit of God he would never have allowed himself the privileged place he has been placed by the "vote" of mortal men!

2009: "The Resurrection is a real historical event, borne out by many authoritative witnesses."

With all due respect, that is no imputation, but as you say, more an evolution to the Truth of the matter!

Big deal, so what??

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

If this present pope were to be born again and rise to proclaim Our Dear Lord's proclamation in His Name from that famous balcony at St. Peter's square, he would be excommunicated and anathematized immediately and the Cardinals would convene a gathering so fast the airlines wouldn't be able to serve them normally in flying them to Rome to vote up a new pope!

1Co 16:21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.
1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
1Co 16:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
1Co 16:24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

You posted:

>>David Waltz, I am glad that someone recognized that. As I mentioned, I'm working off an article that referred me to that section. But have you gathered that Ratzinger, a liberal scholar at the time, is doing anything but denying a physical resurrection?>>

Me: IMHO, in the book referenced, I cannot come to any other conclusion; on page 277 we read:

"To recapitulate, Paul teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the 'fleshly body', that is, the biological structure, ('the perishable cannot become imperishable'), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection..."

I do wonder though if he has changed his views, and if so, when.


Grace and peace,

David

Andrew said...

Is it Ratzinger? Oh, David Waltz answered that already. I was so looking forward to seeming smart. Oh well.

David Waltz said...

Hello natamllc,

I don't know if John wants his thread headed in this direction, but I would like to respond to the following you posted:

>>David W.

I attempted to post at your blog and a message came up and it said my comment was too large.>>

Me: Blogger has a character limit in the combox; in the future divide longer posts into two (or more if necessary) posts.

>>I am somewhat reluctant but will take courage and say I am on guard about you.>>

Me: I think I understand your reservations...

>>Tell us, what do you believe? Is Jesus the Christ>>

Me: Yes (I think that this is now the 3rd time I have affirmed this directly to you).

>>and are you born again?>>

Me: Yes, at least according to requirements set forth in the Scriptures.

>>You have a volume of knowledge, but I sense you do not have the Spirit of Christ???>>

Me: In a previous combox here at BA I asked you to provide a precise list of what you think one must believe to be a true Christian (i.e. to be in Christ, to have the Spirit of Christ), and I ask yet again.

>>And if you do not have the Spirit of Christ then you are not of His Body and there will not be a resurrection for you to the Everlasting Holy Kingdom of God when you pass from this natural life!>>

Me: The above holds true for everyone without exception.

>>I know it is a mystery why God elects some to Eternal Life. So, I am in no way asking you to do "anything". There is nothing we can do to save ourself except accept the Word of Life Whom God sent.>>

Me: I have done this.

>>His name is Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit vindicated Him before the Father just after His resurrection to return to His Glorious Throne from which He was sent to be the Savior of the world of God's elect abiding in this fallen world.>>

Me: Amen!


Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay said...

Rho and Steelikat, thanks for the link. (FYI, the whole text of a link won't appear in the comments page, but it will appear in the comments when you've got the main blog post page open). I've got a busted computer at work, and I'm frequently commenting here on an iPhone, which makes it difficult.

David Waltz -- Ratzinger has given a number of interviews, including a couple of book-length ones. I believe I saw that his views became more conservative as he was promoted up the ecclesiastical ladder.

The article I was referring to noted the "jesuitical distinction" that I mentioned; if the Roman Catholics are concerned about my ability to cite the work of Peter Lampe being inconsistent, I wonder why *popes* are not held to a similar standard of personal consistency. And I'm wondering why a simple nobody of a blogger like myself can come under such scrutiny, when *popes* are given a free pass to commit murder, believe and even teach (as teachers!) all manner of liberal (genuinely harmful "contrary to the faith" liberal -- not quibbles over the dating of epistles.)

What Raymond Brown writes, by the way, is not nearly so liberal -- and worse, so contradictory of Roman dogma -- as what Ratzinger has outlined in his work.

And to be sure, this work, "Introduction to Christianity," is not being sold today under the name "Joseph Ratzinger." Check it out at Amazon -- today it is sold with a big "Pope Benedict XVI" on the front cover.

Where are the cries for "inconsistency" over this?

natamllc said...

"Of course, for Jesus the Resurrection was not a simple return to His earlier life on earth," the Pope continued. "Rather it was a passage to a profoundly new dimension of life, one that is deeply new, that involves in a new dimension the whole of the human family."

Sounds like the dawn of a new era the papacy is preparing to lead her faithful into!

That is pure ecumenical gobblygook!

The Bible does not teach Christ came to save the whole of the human family! Hmmmmm?

A couple of verses then:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Granted, that was a "new" Word from God's Son on earth!

As for a "new" ... "Rather it was a passage to a profoundly new dimension of life, one that is deeply new, how does this pope reconcile that with this:::>


Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


Jesus did not enter into a new dimension of life, He came back to the Eternal Glory of Eternal Life that has no beginning or end!

I believe John, you have uncovered another doctrine of demons espoused by a false worker of the One True God and His Son, Our Savior!

Thanks for doing your good work prepared for you to do as the Apostle Paul taught:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

John Bugay said...

Natamllc: I believe John, you have uncovered another doctrine of demons espoused by a false worker of the One True God and His Son, Our Savior!

I appreciate your comment and I am grateful for your participation here. Really, I am only reporting what someone else uncovered. Tomorrow, Lord willing, I'll post the link to that article. I think it clarifies a lot of things that I haven't been able to get to today.

steelikat said...

While it is an error to deny the physical (or corporeal) resurrection, I think you can error by falling off the other side of the train as well. There is a natural body and a spiritual body. Some people have a very mundane understanding of the resurrection.

The resurrected saints will surely be really human beings, and glorified human beings. They will surely be physical beings. However, It makes no sense to think they will be physically limited by time and space the way we are now, and it makes no sense to think they will be in the presence of God merely in the mundane way that the apostles were in the presence of God in His human nature. Rather, they will be in the presence of God AS GOD, in his divine nature, and that implies a mode of existence greater than what we have now.

Please don't think I am agreeing with the quotes from the pope in your post, though. They seem to be talking about a merely symbolic resurrection, something LESS than a physical resurrection. I'm saying the opposite, that heaven will be something GREATER than what we now experience as the physical. We are spiritual beings largely dominated by our physical nature--and a fallen physical nature at that, surely in heaven the order of things will be reversed and our spiritual nature will dominate so that we will be physical but not limited by the physical.

John Bugay said...

David Waltz, I don't mind you answering Natamllc's questions here. There was (and has been some ongoing concern) here based on some of things you've said about Baha'i, etc. I can't guarantee that I've seen all that discussion, or everything you've written about that, but I'm sure you can understand why some individuals would have some concerns about that.

David Waltz said...

The following link has the 'official' English translation of Benedict XVI's, "The Resurrection Is Not a Theory, but a Historical Reality" Easter message:

http://www.zenit.org/article-25644?l=english


Grace and peace,

David

natamllc said...

John, so humble, that's noble of you!

Sincerely. But, as they say, the first mention is always the first to be acclaimed or, ...? :)

What if you presented your findings of his findings inappropriately? Then what? Oh, now they are thinking of you, "...you bad guy, you, you were bad, bad, bad!" :)

Anyway, not that it needs repeating for your sake, but, I first learned of this from you, not the guy you reference!

Thanks and:

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

2Th 3:16 Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Viisaus said...

We can observe that in this very same book Ratzinger also praised Teilhard de Chardin:

http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host

"In his 1968 work Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger wrote that Eastern Christianity has a deeper appreciation for the "cosmic and metaphysical" dimension of Christianity than the West, but that the West seemed to be recovering that perspective, "especially as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard." He argued that Teilhard gave authentic expression to the Christology of St. Paul.

As pope, Benedict has occasionally used language that seems to reflects a Teilhardian touch. In his 2006 Easter homily, the pontiff referred to the theory of evolution, describing the Resurrection as "the greatest 'mutation,' absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development."