Pages

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Good Morning, Pope Starshine, Part 3: Michael Horton’s New Systematic Theology Would Categorize You as a Panentheist.

Here is Ratzinger in 1969, from “Introduction to Christianity”:
...If Jesus is the exemplary man, in whom the true figure of man, God’s intention for him, comes fully to light, then he cannot be destined to be merely an absolute exception, a curiosity, in which God demonstrates to us just what is possible. His existence concerns all mankind. The New Testament makes this perceptible by calling him an “Adam”; in the Bible this word expresses the unity of the whole creature “man”, so that one can speak of the biblical idea of a “corporate personality” [emphasis added]. So if Jesus is called “Adam” this implies that he is intended to gather the whole creature “Adam” in himself. But this means that the reality which Paul calls, in a way that is largely incomprehensible to us today, the “body of Christ” is an intrinsic postulate of this existence, which cannot remain an exception but must “draw to itself” the whole of mankind (cf John 12:32).(176)

It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he re-thought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency towards the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again. Let us listen to his own words: the human monad [monad being Ratzinger’s word; Teilhard de Chardin’s words are in “quotes”] “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely the order of the infinitely complex. It is the real goal of the ascending powers of growth or becoming; it reaches a first peak in the genesis of living things and then continues to advance to those highly complex creations which give the cosmos a new centre: [emphasis added] “Imperceptible and accidental as the position which they hold may be in the history of the heavenly bodies, in the last analysis the planets are nothing less than the vital points of the universe. It is through them that the axis now runs, on them henceforth concentrated the main effort of an evolution aiming principally at the production of large molecules.”

The examination of the world by the dynamic criterion of complexity thus signifies “a complete inversion of values. A reversal of the perspective.”

But let us return to man. He is so far the maximum in complexity. But even he as a mere man-monad cannot represent an end; his growth itself demands a further advance in complexity: “At the same time as he represents an individual centred on himself (that is, a ‘person’), does not Man also represent an element in relation to some new and higher synthesis?” That is to say, man is indeed on the one hand already an end that can no longer be reversed, no longer be melted down again; yet in the juxtaposition of individual men he is not yet at the goal but shows himself to be an element, as it were, that longs for a whole which will embrace it without destroying it. Let us look at a further text, in order to see in what direction such ideas lead: “Contrary to the appearances still accepted by Physics, the Great Stability is not below – in the infra-elemental – but above – in the ultra-synthetic.”

So it must be discovered that “If things hold and hold together, it is only by virtue of ‘complexification’, from the top”. I think we are confronted here with a crucial statement; at this point the dynamic view of the world destroys the positivistic conception, so near to all of us, that stability is located only in the “mass”, in hard material. That the world is in the last resort put together and held together “from above” here becomes evident in a way that is particularly striking because we are so little accustomed to it.
Then in July 2009, in an address in Aosta, Italy, Benedict again, as pope, cites Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his pantheistic vision, far beyond what was said in “Introduction to Christianity” and claims that “the cosmos becomes a living host” (From this post.):
“Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice”. This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.
Now, a brief selection from Michael Horton’s new Systematic Theology is online. He provides these definitions for both “Pantheism” and “Panentheism”:
A. Pantheism and Panentheism: Overcoming Estrangement

The first grand narrative erases (or tends to erase) the infinite-qualitative distinction between God and creatures. Narrated in myriad myths across many cultures, this is the story of the ascent of the soul — that divine part of us, which has somehow become trapped in matter and history. Although it originates in dualism — a stark (even violent) opposition between finite and infinite, matter and spirit, time and eternity, humanity and God, the goal is to reestablish the unity of all reality. In some versions, only that which is infinite, spiritual, eternal, and divine is real, so all else perishes or is somehow elevated into the upper world. Nevertheless, the goal is to lose all particularity and diversity in the One, which is Being itself….

Within the history of Western Christianity there have been tendencies among some mystics to move in a pantheistic direction. An extreme example is the fourteenth- century mystic Meister Eckhart, who wrote in a characteristic sermon, “To the inward-turned man all things have an inward divinity. . . . Nothing is so proper to the intellect, nor so present and near as God.” The connection between rationalism and mysticism is as old as Platonism itself. This outer-inner dualism has characterized much of radical mysticism in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as well as in Sufi Islam and Jewish Kabbalism. This trajectory continued in radical Protestantism from the Anabaptists to the early Enlightenment. It is especially evident in the philosophy of Benedict Spinoza (1632-77), which was revived in German Romanticism and American Transcendentalism. Its influence is evident in the dominant forms of theological liberalism and especially today in New Age and neopagan spiritualities.…

Some have tried to blend pantheism (“all is divine”) with belief in a personal God (theism). Often identified as panentheism (“all-within-God”), this view holds that “God” or the divine principle transcends the world, although God and the world exist in mutual dependence. In varying degrees of explicit dependence, panentheism is the working ontology of process theology and the theologies of Teilhard de Chardin, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann among many others, especially those working at the intersection of theology and the philosophy of science. Some panentheists envision the world as the body of God. (Michael Horton, “The Christian Faith,” Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, ©2011, pgs 36-39.)

30 comments:

  1. "(cf John 12:32).(176)"

    What is the (176)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is the (176)?

    That was probably the page number in my edition of "Introduction to Christianity." I had made a more complete citation in the earlier post (which is linked), and I just tagged the page number where that paragraph appeared.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought I had included it in the earlier post. Sorry, I will have to check that and get back to you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Citations are from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Introduction to Christianity," San Francisco: Ignatius Press, (c) 1990 ("With ecclesiastical approval").

    ReplyDelete
  5. For any RC who may object to the effect of "Pope Benedict 16 is obviously not a panentheist!" you need to also give us the endgame. Why did he say these things? How are they harmonisable with RC dogma? Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alan, this is precisely the thing that is most objectionable to the "we must have a living voice to interpret" RCs -- and I am referring to Ratzinger's statements here, and not my own. We will no doubt hear that he is "speaking as a private theologian and not for the church." but for all we hear about him being a great theologian, he sure is a mixed-up puppy. How can a guy like this be of any help to anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  7. “For any RC who may object to the effect of "Pope Benedict 16 is obviously not a panentheist!" you need to also give us the endgame. Why did he say these things? How are they harmonisable with RC dogma? Be specific.”

    It may be your desire for a Catholic to give you the “endgame,” but a Catholic has no such obligation to do so. If there is any obligation, it is to read the sources cited and more and to come to a conclusion as to whether the accusation of the post is sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rhology/John Bugay,

    I think the misconceptions that you and John have with Ratzinger's writings really delineates the chasm between Protestant and Catholic thought.

    I "think" (Ratzinger's thinking is above mine) I can explain it but it would take A LOT of time and it would require you to understand it from a Catholic mindset.

    I'm at work right now so it would have to be later. If you're interested and we can have a good discussion without namecalling or tearing each other apart. I'm in.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TheDen,
    Would such a discussion involve private fallible interpretations of the papal text?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Huh?

    If you're referring to that previous discussion, nothing I wrote was "private interpretation."

    I can pull it right from the Catechism--I think.

    I may have to find my copy of that book. I think it's buried somewhere in my basement and I may just have to work off the quote.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You said:
    I can explain it but it would take A LOT of time and it would require you to understand it from a Catholic mindset.

    That's what I was referring to.
    Would it be your private fallible interp of what a Pope said?
    If so, may I ask why anyone would find that helpful?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, you're right.

    Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (On the other hand, such a discussion could take place and be quite fruitful, if only RCs like you would drop your irrational "private interp vs infallible interp" dichotomy. It's the fault of YOUR position.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If so, may I ask why anyone would find that helpful?"

    As for me, I'll guess I'll be the judge of whether I find it helpful. I'd like to call TheDen's bluff. Please take the time and help me to understand it from the Roman Catholic mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "TheDen", I would be interested in knowing what you know about "the Catholic mindset" that I didn't grow up with.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alright...here goes.

    In Catholic thought, we are united to Christ. We become one with Him per John 15. How does this happen? It happens through our obedience to Him. We no longer follow our will but rather we follow Christ. It’s no longer I--it’s now Christ. And then, per Galatians, it’s “no longer I who live but rather Christ who lives inside me.” In essence, we become Christ but only in obedience to Him. We are united to Him and He nourishes us and in doing His will, we spread forth His message.

    Now, what in the world is Ratzinger talking about? I’ll be honest. I read it a few times and I was like, “huh????” And thanks to John Bugay, I couldn’t get that stupid song out of my head all day yesterday.

    In 1 Corinthians, Paul lays out what Ratzinger/Benedict is talking about. In the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul talks about how the bread that we break--what Catholics call the Host--is a participation in the Body of Christ. As there is one loaf of bread, then we are all one Body because we partake in one loaf. That one loaf is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ at the one sacrifice at Calvary.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Now, as a Church--as a corporate body, all in unison being obedient to Christ. We become the Body of Christ. We are Christ on earth. Christ is the head per Ephesians 5:23,30 and per Colossians 1:18-23, He is the head and we are the body “provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel.” As Scripture tells us in 1 Corinthians 12: 12-31, we are one Body of Christ united through Baptism. All following Christ’s will we work together in harmony doing what Christ wants. We have different functions acting as Christ together in harmony. If there is division, it’s like a disease within one body and needs to be healed for “if one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it.” So, we are Christ on earth and Christ in heaven is the head and we are here to do His will.

    What is His will?

    Jesus tells us in Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." So, our mission as a Church--as a corporate Body of Christ is to go and evangelize the world. It’s to baptize all people and teach them to observe all that Christ commanded.

    Christ’s mission is to make all men Christian so that entire WORLD becomes the Body of Christ. That’s what He wants. He doesn’t just want to save some people His desire is that all men come to Him and do His will. His desire is that ALL MEN ARE SAVED.

    So, understanding that. Ratzinger’s first paragraph talks about this. Christ is the new Adam who per John will draw all men to Him in the hope that all men are saved.

    The second part is a little trickier. He’s talking about the Cosmos and creation. From a macro view, it would seem that the cosmos would be focused on BIG. The galaxies or the stars. or the SMALL, the atom. But that’s not the case. God has shifted this to a focus not on the big but rather on the complex. The focus of the universe has shifted from the stars to the planets. Specifically, it’s focused on earth and on man. Man is the focus of the universe. We are God’s greatest creation. Not the stars. Not the atoms. It’s man.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the third part, Ratzinger focuses on this great creation of man. God makes man even greater! God has now united man to God. Through Christ, He created a synthesis of man and God and has invited man to participate in this synthesis.


    In Benedict’s homily, he’s telling us that with our entire being we must be “adoration and sacrifice.” We must going back to Paul and 1st Corinthians. We are one Body of Christ. We are one loaf. That we as a Church become a living host that transforms the world and gives it back to Christ. Through Christ with the Holy Spirit, we “renew the face of the earth.” (Psalm 104:30) and per de Chardin, we renew the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. TheDen,

    Thank you!

    I'll reflect on what you've said later.

    ReplyDelete
  20. TheDen,

    I look at what you are saying, then I look at what Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) said and to me they look like two very different things. It seems to me that you are explaining it away or struggling to stuff it into an orthodox box in which it does not really fit. Your initial reaction, "huh???" still seems most appropriate to me.

    John 15. I think you are right. You are taking Christ at his word, and believing that he means what he says, which is what we ought to do. As long as you don't make that the basis of justification, and understand that Christ is talking about what happens to believers who are already justified, you can avoid the error John B. talks about, the error of thinking you can be "good enough" to go to heaven. Surely we are capable of nothing but wickedness, and cannot be good enough for anything, yet sinners are saved through faith alone, on the basis of Christ's righteousness. Surely, otoh, we must be good enough to go to heaven, in fact heaven means the eschatological union you are talking about with Christ, who is Goodness Himself. But that union and goodness is something that is created in the believer post-justification, beginning when the believer is sanctified in this life, and mostly accomplished when he is glorified after death and finally at the Resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steelikat,

    “I look at what you are saying, then I look at what Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) said and to me they look like two very different things. “

    I think a huge problem is that the translator had absolutely no clue what Ratzinger was talking about and was trying to finish the job then giving a good translation. Also, I’m assuming de Chardin is French so we have his translation which is French translated to German then translated to English. I think we know where this can lead.

    I didn’t go through a sentence by sentence breakdown but I’m pretty sure I got it right.

    Here’s my sentence by sentence walk through of it. Read this with my understanding of it:

    JR: ...If Jesus is the exemplary man, in whom the true figure of man, God’s intention for him, comes fully to light, then he cannot be destined to be merely an absolute exception, a curiosity, in which God demonstrates to us just what is possible. His existence concerns all mankind.

    My Understanding: Jesus is the perfect man. God’s plan is not as a showcase. Something of him on a pedestal but rather something that will concern all man.

    JR: The New Testament makes this perceptible by calling him an “Adam”; in the Bible this word expresses the unity of the whole creature “man”, so that one can speak of the biblical idea of a “corporate personality” [emphasis added]. So if Jesus is called “Adam” this implies that he is intended to gather the whole creature “Adam” in himself.

    My Understanding: In the NT, Jesus is the New Adam. Per Romans 5:15-21, in Adam, his sin brought death to all men. Through Jesus, the new Adam, grace also might reign through justification for many.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As Adam’s sin concerns all men, Jesus’ grace should concern all men as well.


    JR: But this means that the reality which Paul calls, in a way that is largely incomprehensible to us today, the “body of Christ” is an intrinsic postulate of this existence, which cannot remain an exception but must “draw to itself” the whole of mankind (cf John 12:32).(176)

    My understanding: What Paul calls “the Body of Christ” (hardly noticeable today) is a necessity for this to happen. It cannot be an “exception” but rather the norm and must eventually incorporate the entire man kind (per John 12:32).

    JR: It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he re-thought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency towards the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again.

    My understanding: de Chardin deserves credit for rethinking all of this from a modern view looking at it from a not completely incorrect biological point from a big picture approach takes a fresh look at it.


    JR: Let us listen to his own words: the human monad [monad being Ratzinger’s word; Teilhard de Chardin’s words are in “quotes”] “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely the order of the infinitely complex.

    My understanding: Per Chardin, the human can only be unique in relation to everything (?). In the universe, there are two orders or classes (I’m assuming of study)...the infinitely small (i.e. the atom) and the infinitely big (i.e. the stars/galaxies). Now there is a new third order of study, the study of complexity which is where evolution falls into.

    ReplyDelete
  23. JR: It is the real goal of the ascending powers of growth or becoming; it reaches a first peak in the genesis of living things and then continues to advance to those highly complex creations which give the cosmos a new centre: [emphasis added]

    My understanding: The study of the complex seems to peak in the fact that there is life but then the complexity continues to advance. This study of the advancement of complexities gives the universe a new center of focus.


    JR: “Imperceptible and accidental as the position which they hold may be in the history of the heavenly bodies, in the last analysis the planets are nothing less than the vital points of the universe. It is through them that the axis now runs, on them henceforth concentrated the main effort of an evolution aiming principally at the production of large molecules.” The examination of the world by the dynamic criterion of complexity thus signifies “a complete inversion of values. A reversal of the perspective.”


    My understanding: The PLANETS (small and apparently random as they may be in the study of galaxies and the universe. These are the vital points of the universe as this is where life can exist. This is where the true hub/center lies. This is where an evolution can happen in which the goal is the production of the ever more complex large molecules. This new theory puts the study of the universe on its head. As now we are no longer studying big or small, we are now searching for life on planets (something that’s actually happening now--forty years after Ratzinger wrote this).



    JR: But let us return to man. He is so far the maximum in complexity. But even he as a mere man-monad cannot represent an end; his growth itself demands a further advance in complexity:

    My understanding: Coming back to earth, let’s look at man. He is the most complex...so far. But even man cannot be the end--there will be a further advancement of complexity (ie evolution will continue).


    JR: “At the same time as he represents an individual centred on himself (that is, a ‘person’), does not Man also represent an element in relation to some new and higher synthesis?” That is to say, man is indeed on the one hand already an end that can no longer be reversed, no longer be melted down again; yet in the juxtaposition of individual men he is not yet at the goal but shows himself to be an element, as it were, that longs for a whole which will embrace it without destroying it.

    My understanding: Man right now focusing on the self is not and cannot be the end. He is merely an “element” into some new and higher complexity--a synthesis.

    Man no is the greatest complexity. There is nothing more that can be melted down and made more complex yet man is not yet there. Man is a mere element that is yearning to be made more perfect without drastically destroying us.


    JR: Let us look at a further text, in order to see in what direction such ideas lead: “Contrary to the appearances still accepted by Physics, the Great Stability is not below – in the infra-elemental – but above – in the ultra-synthetic.”

    My understanding: Where this ultimately leads to is not where you’d think. Evolution isn’t going to lead to a change in our elemental core (from below) but from above in the ultra-synthetic (meaning man will be merged with something).

    Does this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  24. No it does not make sense at all.

    "TheDen" said: I think a huge problem is that the translator had absolutely no clue what Ratzinger was talking about and was trying to finish the job then giving a good translation.

    How can you possibly know what the translator was thinking? This work was translated in 1969, by a professional organization, Burns & Oates Ltd., and it is known as "he premier Roman Catholic publishing imprint in Great Britain, and a leading imprint throughout the English speaking world. The two rivals for such a title, Sheed and Ward and Geoffrey Chapman, have both now been acquired by Continuum and their lists folded into Burns & Oates.

    Founded in 1847, among its earliest authors was Cardinal Newman. It continued to publish outstanding Roman Catholic thinkers thereafter – G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Hans Küng, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Romano Guardini, Thomas Merton and Frederick Copleston SJ."

    http://www.continuumbooks.com/about-us-burns.aspx

    But now "TheDen" doesn't like the implications of the translation that they have provided of one of Ratzinger's works -- the implication being that Ratzinger has bought wholly into some kind of new-age mish-mosh, and is trying to pass it off as some sort of advanced theology -- and "TheDen" merely tosses aside the reality of the translation and applies his own "understanding" to it.

    And Rhology prophesied earlier that "TheDen" would provide: ... your private fallible interp of what a Pope said …

    Who'da thunk you'd have blamed it on the translator?

    Your "understanding" here really is no more than just wishful thinking. In your "translation," did you work from an actual German text, or are you just assuming that the translators, in this case, "©1969 by Burns & Oates, Ltd.," and "with ecclesiastical approval" got the translation wrong?

    This has got to be the most audacious exercise of "fallible private interpretation" that we have seen here in a long time.

    Not only has the book been in print for some 40+ years, but in the history of this publication, I don't recall that I've ever seen an uproar that this translation of a work by a great German theologian really is full of mistranslations.

    It's no wonder you can accept the bending and twisting of biblical words to suit your needs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John,

    JB: "How can you possibly know what the translator was thinking? "

    You're right, I don't know what he was thinking. This was just a guess on how hard Ratzinger is to read.

    JB: "But now "TheDen" doesn't like the implications of the translation that they have provided of one of Ratzinger's works -- the implication being that Ratzinger has bought wholly into some kind of new-age mish-mosh, and is trying to pass it off as some sort of advanced theology -- and "TheDen" merely tosses aside the reality of the translation and applies his own "understanding" to it. "

    I will stand by my understanding of Ratzinger's writings. If you can explain it better, please by all means explain it. To me, it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steelikat,

    I agree with you for the most part about your understanding with a few small changes:

    S: "Surely we are capable of nothing but wickedness"

    I believe we are capable of NOTHING without God. However, without God's grace, man turns inwardly toward the self. It's not that we are capable of nothing but wickedness but rather we are capable of nothing but selfishness.

    S: yet sinners are saved through faith alone, on the basis of Christ's righteousness

    I believe we are saved by grace through faith. Meaning it's God's grace that saves us and through our "obedience of faith" we are saved.

    Everything else, I am fully in agreement with.

    ReplyDelete
  27. TheDen,

    I'm way behind, it's going to take me a while to catch up to you.

    1 Corinthians 10. I don't see anything wrong with your summary of what Paul was saying. That does not seem to me to resemble what Ratzinger was saying, though.

    As for your comments from Jan 15, it's worth your while to look at John Bugays response in another thread. We cannot do Gods will well enough to merit Gods grace, and his grace is not contingent upon our doing his will. Just the opposite is the case. He saves us though we are sinners who won't do his will. Anyway I don't think you are adequately explaining Ratzingers remarks. I'm looking for you to explain to me how it's not vaguely pantheistic nonsense. I think you are doing that in your comments from Jan 16, which I have not read carefully yet. I'll get back to you.

    ReplyDelete

You've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"