A reader writes:
I am involved in our parish group and in one of the books we have to read was an extended article about Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ. We though he was a hero until today.
In a Spanish newspaper I read the warning he has received from the Vatican for deny publicly Jesus divinity.
Can you clarify for me please?
I’ll do my best. The story you read is based on an actual event. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a warning about two books by Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ. The warning, among other things, notes Fr. Sobrino’s failure to clearly affirm the divinity of Christ. That passages of the warning reads:
4. A number of Father Sobrino’s affirmations tend to diminish the breadth of the New Testament passages which affirm that Jesus is God: "[The New Testament] makes clear that he was intimately bound up with God, which meant that his reality had to be expressed in some way as a reality that is of God (cf. Jn 20:28)" (Christ the Liberator, 115). In reference to John 1:1, he affirms: "Strictly speaking, this logos is not yet said to be God (consubstantial with the Father), but something is claimed for him that will have great importance for reaching this conclusion: his preexistence. This does not signify something purely temporal but relates him to the creation and links the logos with action specific to the divinity" (Christ the Liberator, 257). According to the Author, the New Testament does not clearly affirm the divinity of Jesus, but merely establishes the presuppositions for it: "The New Testament…contains expressions that contain the seed of what will produce confession of the divinity of Christ in the strict sense" (Ibidem). "All this means that at the outset Jesus was not spoken of as God, nor was divinity a term applied to him; this happened only after a considerable interval of believing explication, almost certainly after the fall of Jerusalem" (Ibidem, 114).
To maintain that John 20:28 affirms that Jesus is "of God" is clearly erroneous, in as much as the passage itself refers to Jesus as "Lord" and "God." Similarly, John 1:1 says that the Word is God. Many other texts speak of Jesus as Son and as Lord.5 The divinity of Jesus has been the object of the Church’s faith from the beginning, long before his consubstantiality with the Father was proclaimed by the Council of Nicea. The fact that this term was not used does not mean that the divinity of Jesus was not affirmed in the strict sense, contrary to what the Author seems to imply.
Father Sobrino does not deny the divinity of Jesus when he proposes that it is found in the New Testament only "in seed" and was formulated dogmatically only after many years of believing reflection. Nevertheless he fails to affirm Jesus’ divinity with sufficient clarity. This reticence gives credence to the suspicion that the historical development of dogma, which Sobrino describes as ambiguous, has arrived at the formulation of Jesus’ divinity without a clear continuity with the New Testament.
But the divinity of Jesus is clearly attested to in the passages of the New Testament to which we have referred. The numerous Conciliar declarations in this regard6 are in continuity with that which the New Testament affirms explicitly and not only "in seed". The confession of the divinity of Jesus Christ has been an absolutely essential part of the faith of the Church since her origins. It is explicitly witnessed to since the New Testament.
HERE’S THE FULL TEXT OF THE WARNING.
AND AN EXPLANATORY NOTE ISSUED BY THE CDF.
AND SOME PERSPECTIVE BY JOHN ALLEN.
On a side note, I found it interesting that–though Sobrino has been active in Latin American liberation theology–he is of Basque origin.
Incidentally (sorry, but the linguist in me can’t resist), Basque is one of the few language isolates that exists in Europe (or anywhere else). That is, it is a language that is not clearly part of a larger language family, like the Indo-European family, to which virtually all of the European languages belong. Basque, apparently, is a survival of a language that was already in place before the expansion of Indo-European into Europe. Almost everywhere else got swallowed up by speakers of Indo-European langauges, but the Basques held on to theirs.
Consequently, I’d really like to study their language some time.
MORE.
I’ve read on wikipedia that Korean is a language isolate, and that Japanese belongs to a tiny language family (Japonic) that includes itself and Ryukyuan languages. In other words, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are all parts of separate language families.
I have absolutely zero linguist background. However, I find this extremely hard to believe.
Smokey,
Although I am not a linguist, I think I have to disagree. I speak/read Japanese, and most/all of the Japanese Kanji (the chinese-looking root words) originated from Chinese, and Japanese Kanji has both a Chinese pronunciation and a Japanese pronunciation depending in how the Kanji are assembled– so that Japanese person can usually read some Chinese, even if they cannot speak it. If Japonic and Ryukyuan languages are isolates, then I’d venture to guess that these older languages have been absorbed into modern Japanese and are the non-Chinese half of the equation.
Korean grammar is practically identical to Japanese grammar, except that the words are different. And Japanese grammar is completely different from Chinese, but the Kanji words are similar.
Joe K
I have to say that while a lot of this Jesuit’s work does seem to have problems with and I agree with the CDF’s document in general, I also think there’s at least something to the accusation made in his defense that the CDF was overly critical and literalistic in reading him. For example, using the same sort of fine-toothed comb that was used on this individuals work, I could look to a quote that was actually offered by the CDF in this article against the Jesuit:
“For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision.”
Does this say that the Son at one point didn’t experience the beatific vision? It certainly seems to. The document does not sufficiently clarify this, and in fact seems to state positively that atone point the Son lacked the beatific vision, denying the Divinity of the 2nd Person.
A lot of the points they make are along the same lines as this, sortof very knicky-knacky, reading things too literally. Some of the points are good, but overall, I have to say that the CDF is either going too far on this or chose some really bad examples to illustrate the nature of the priest’s work.
If Japonic and Ryukyuan languages are isolates, then I’d venture to guess that these older languages have been absorbed into modern Japanese
I may not have been clear; the wikipedia article does not say that Japanese and Ryukyuan are isolates. Rather, togther they compose the Japonic language family.
This page lists Korean as an isolate.
Finally, This page lists Chinese in the Sino-Tibetan language family.
Hence, my conclusion is that linguists believe that the three languages developed independently, which I (as a linguistic lay person) find hard to believe.
Sir,
Language is not problem.Fr. John Sobrino should be excommunicated, whoever it may be. In India many write up and books are published by the priests against the faith and dogma. But the bishops are simply watching what we do. Vatican should think our feelings. Lay people are not a just fool.
As long as Limbo survives, the CDF has no credibility. As long as the CDF remains quiet about the historic Jesus movement, the CDF has no credibility.
I don’t believe the “historic Jesus movement” (as we have come to call it) really existed, as such.
Textual analysis confirms that their writings are highly culturally conditioned, and are more the results of an ideological agenda than any mere process of “fact finding”. They are far more “faith stories” than actual statements of “truth”. They grew out of the oral traditions of the early “kook theology” community of the period, and are not meant to be taken literally.
I think that its very hard to believe but its only a perosnal opinion,,, 🙂
Tim J-
you don’t believe the historic Jesus movement existed? Can you clarify that a LOT more?
Jimmy,
If you’re serious about studying Basque, you need to come up here to the University of Nevada, Reno sometime. Not only do we teach the Basque language, but we have the largest Basque library outside of Spain and the only Basqu studies program outside of Europe.
http://basque.unr.edu/
–arthur
My read on this, is that the Hierarchy is making and ‘example’ of Fr. Sobrino, sort of like the way the US govenment does with famous tax ‘cheats’. Really, there are so many heretical teachings being published and taught today, in one form or another, that it would probably be impossible to address them all…even as with the Tax evasion analogy.
However, the Vatican is now in ‘teaching mode’ and this is just one more way to start directing the faithful away from more of the same Vatican II inspired abuses and errors that practically everyone is now aware of. And I would’nt be surprised if more censureships were on the way to reinforce these practical lessons even further.
WE already see that the Vatican Congregation for the Bishops has recently upheld the excommunication requests against the Voice of the Faithful. And now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is making an example of Fr. Sobrino. Personally I believe these disciplinary actions are meant to send the message to all dissident groups…”Come back, because the Church under the leadership of Pope Benedict, is now unified in her theological, doctrinal and sacramental beliefs and practices. You can see how you will be ‘put under the microscope’ if you continue in your errent ways! Are you listening, all you liberal theologians out there? Are you listening all you ‘new movements’ out there that tend to create division in the Holy Church (ie. NeoCatechumenal Way)?
Maybe we might start seeing even more ‘teeth’ being used against the most aggregious of these ‘borderline’ groups and deviant theologians. Or, at least, the threat of ‘teeth’, so as to further encourage them to ‘fall in line’ and begin actively participating in B16’s ‘Reform of the Reform’.
I took Realist to mean that the failure of the CDF to explicitly repudiate the so-called “historical Jesus” movement and Limbo means that it has no credibility.
If so, while I can understand his desire for such explicit repudiations, the notion that the CDF’s failure to satisfy those desires renders it “not credible” seems over the top to me.
First, the movement is ill-defined and has very limited influence outside some narrow insular academic communities. Second, recent pronouncements regarding Limbo already clarify that it is nothing more than theological speculation, and possibly poor speculation at that; but repudiating it absolutely would seem unnecessary and possibly even wrong.
Mike –
“I took Realist to mean that the failure of the CDF to explicitly repudiate the so-called “historical Jesus” movement and Limbo means that it has no credibility. ”
Sadly, no. Realist is a frequent poster here. He means that until the CDF recognizes that the Jesus Seminar is right and the Church is wrong, they have no credibility… with him.
He does not believe that Jesus worked miracles or rose from the tomb, for instance. Other than that, he’s pretty orthodox. 😉
JD,
“…you don’t believe the historic Jesus movement existed? Can you clarify that a LOT more?”
That was toungue in cheek. I was just turning the favorite tools of the most preposterous higher critics back on them. They dismiss the historical reliability of the gospels based on the same kind of drivel.
The “historic Jesus” movement is a branch of scripture analysis that draws a false distinction between the “Jesus of History” (to them, the REAL Jesus) and the “Christ of Faith” (a figment of the Church’s imagination).
They believe that hardly anything recorded in the gospels is actually true, and only tiny fragments are “genuine” words of Jesus… coincidentally, the parts they agree with.
All the rest was added by mysterious editors and can be ignored. According to them.
Jimmy, your interest in studying Basque reminds me of an old saying I read once, that the Devil spent 20 years studying Basque and ended up only able to understand three words. I’ve heard the same saying from French-speakers in reference to Breton and from English-speakers in reference to Welsh.
And just so there’s no confusion, the reason the Devil is mentioned in the saying is because before he fell from heaven, Lucifer possessed great wisdom and had great intellectual gifts. It’s not an attempt to insult the Basque language as something fit only for the inhabitants of hell. On the contrary, it’s partly meant to imply that the Devil is so unfamiliar with Basque because no one in hell speaks it.
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding, Tim.
For those interested in the historic Jesus, see the list of contemporary NT scholars posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html . The reference also include biographical information about each scholar and a list of the books each has written on the subject. (~100 books).
Good one Jordan! 🙂
I once went to a traditional Basque Mass in the Bay Area, south of S.F., and was surprised to see how well armed the alter boys were! They held large ceremonial battle axes, and occasionally turned them in varing positions.
The over all message was: “you’re an idiot if you so much as raise you little pinky to our priest!! Probably worked well with the Moslems!
Both St. Ignatius Loyola and Saint Francis Xavier were Basques. They are a fiery people, very Celtic. I would love to learn their language, but I want to learn Gaelic first.
Perhaps I’m just too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t see that Sobrino said something very heretical. It is a different thing to say “the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father” and “Christians didn’t believe Jesus was consubstantial with the Father.” I, personally, think that the first being true doesn’t mean the second is. Frankly, this “lack” merely argues for the necessity and Divine mission of the Church, in my book. While I like to think sometimes of heretics as being self-deluded fools, just as often they are self deluded smart people. The Arians denied that Jesus was of like substance with the Father, and they made some compelling arguements from Scripture, if the contemporary accounts are to be believed. Most of the elites, at one time, held this view. It was, after all, a rather superior, nuanced, not at all common and vulgar theology (not unlike the historical Jesus movement). 🙂
I’m not necessarily saying the warning is wrong or uncalled for. It may be possible that the CDF is merely “cracking down” and trying to hold everyone to strict orthodoxy. Indeed, I may have misinterpreted what was quoted, and, of course, I have not read the original, so I’m in no position to judge. Just chiming in.
From Realist and his fellow Jesus Seminar zealots, with all this talk of the ‘historic Jesus’ and the ‘Christ of Faith’; they almost make it appear that Jesus was suffering from schizophrenia!
Well, Esau…He did go out alone a lot and talk when there was no one else around.
’86’ that — I should have said ‘multiple personality disorder’, not schizophrenia.
Well, Esau…He did go out alone a lot and talk when there was no one else around.
LOL! <=^D Needed that laugh!
Indeed, Esau, I didn’t notice that slip, but my wife would have flayed you alive for it. She’s rather touchy on that subject. She’s just picky on terminology. Not that she suffers from either…really. Honey?
As for multiple personality…let’s not get started on the Trinity and that.
Glad you got a laugh. 🙂
Indeed, Esau, I didn’t notice that slip, but my wife would have flayed you alive for it. She’s rather touchy on that subject. She’s just picky on terminology.
Your wife isn’t the only one — I know a lot of folks who would’ve felt the same as your wife, which explains why I was quick in issuing an immediate correction.
As for the laugh — yeah, that did the trick!
Thanks again!
It helps ‘work’ run more smoothly!
Esau, Lily Tomlin was way ahead of you. Quite a while ago she said, “If you talk to God, you’re praying. If God talks to you, you’re schizophrenic.”
Darn!
Lily Tomlin — isn’t she the one they call the ‘Operator’ or is that somebody else?
One of Lily Tomlin’s characters is Ernestine the Operator. “Mr. Milhouse? Mr. Milhouse?”
Esau, it just shows that great minds think alike 🙂
Bill, is this the party to whom I am speaking?
I have to join in Brian’s confusion about just what the CDF is up to here. In a course I took on Liberation Theology, I read both of Sobrino’s books (as well as those of Gutierrez and others) and the CDF’s two 1980’s notifications. Unlike many in the class, and Gutierrez himself, I thought that the two CDF documents were very well put and issued some very important clarifications, while attempting to bolster the positive concern for the poor in a way their critics failed to attend to.
This one, however, I just don’t really understand. Is Sobrino more in the mode of the “historical Jesus” folks than I think is correct? Yes. But if you actually read the books he is definitely not offering up a definitive program for theology which excludes all more traditional approaches, nor is he saying anything heretical about the divinity of Christ. I don’t see why anyone would choose to read his work so uncharitably.
Unlike the commentator at NCR, I can see perfectly why John Allen was sympathetic to Sobrino and not to Haight. Sobrino wants the Church to see the poor as its roots; Haight wants to see the Church admit that orthdoxy is a mirage. The two aren’t comparable, and I don’t see why the CDF would do so little to distinguish between the two.
Joe K/Smoky–I don’t think the fact that Chinese characters spread throughout Asia as a means of writing various local languages, from Japanese to Vietnamese, has anything to do with the linguistic provenance of the (spoken) languages themselves. It’s simply a byproduct of Chinese cultural imperialism over a few millennia.
I don’t have any trouble at all believing that Japanese is not from the same language family as any of the Chineses; one is atonal and the others have multiple tones and an entirely different grammar. It’s not like French and Italian.
“The two aren’t comparable, and I don’t see why the CDF would do so little to distinguish between the two.”
It’s you who are bringing Haight into this, not the CDF. Their notification regarding the dangerous errors of Fr. Sobrino says absolutely nothing about Haight.
Anyway, what the CDF is saying, in part, is that Fr. Sobrino’s interpretation of the Bible regarding the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is false and contrary to the Church’s interpretation of those Bible passages (not to mention their plain meaning).
This one, however, I just don’t really understand. Is Sobrino more in the mode of the “historical Jesus” folks than I think is correct? Yes. But if you actually read the books he is definitely not offering up a definitive program for theology which excludes all more traditional approaches, nor is he saying anything heretical about the divinity of Christ. I don’t see why anyone would choose to read his work so uncharitably.
Ryan,
That’s just it —
For all the perceived leniency of the CDF in the past, look at what’s happened?
So many liberal theologians hacking away at Orthodox Church Teachings which has lead up to the ruined state of the Church today.
It’s time to pull in the reins for once!
It was posted:
“I am involved in our parish group and in one of the books we have to read was an extended article about Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ. We though he was a hero until today.
In a Spanish newspaper I read the warning he has received from the Vatican for deny publicly Jesus divinity.
Can you clarify for me please?”
The question is why was he even allowed to be read in the Parish group? It is simple, because now anything goes, Charismatics, protestanism, handholding, liturgical dance (no matter what the Girm says, go visit some church’s in Urban areas), Karl Rahner, you name it! Prayer with Pagans!!
Renewal time everbody!!!
Sigh
Basques are pretty hardheaded people.
Just that, like in this case, sometimes for the wrong reasons.
John, someone in a previous thread commented that no matter the topic, you have the same spiel. It’s true. You could set a Swiss watch by it. No matter what the topic, your response is a knee jerk sweeping and inaccurate generalization of anything and everything post Vatican II.
I’m not defending Fr. Sobrino. Prior to this thread, I had never heard of him. But it did strike me as funny that I could predict your post even before I read it.
It’s unfortunate because you’re cutting yourself from any meaningful discussion.
Your whole post is a lie, Mary Kay. Swiss watches were declared anathema by Vatican II. The sweeping of jerky knees was made part of the rubrics of the mass of Paul VI. Vatican II was an inaccurate specification. Strikes were illegal before the Freemasons and Communists who conducted Vatican II legalized them. And any discussion that does not say “Vatican II bad!” is, by definition, not meaningful.
The reason I feel Sobrino is a real basque-et case is that his approach tends to work against an orthodox understanding not just of Jesus, but of the hierarchical, authoritative Church Jesus established by His Divine Authority not only as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) but also, as Vatican 2 affirms, “the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery” (Lumen Gentium #3).
This serves to weaken not only Christ, but also His Church.
As the ensuing cynicism against “the hierarchical church” grows, Protestants move in to Latin America to mop up.
Jordan,
I’m well aware that the CDF didn’t make any comparisons with Fr. Haight here–it was a commentator on Allen’s article at the NCR that mentioned Haight. What I am suggesting is that a reading of the CDF’s notification in this case and in the case of Roger Haight indicates less of a difference in tone than an orthodox Catholic familiar with both authors’ works might expect.
I do think that Sobrino is wrong about the level of definitiveness about the divinity of Christ present in the New Testament, and I do agree that this has become a widespread belief presenting a danger to the faithful. In this particular aspect of his argument, however, Sobrino strikes me as rather a follower than a leader–come to any NT class at Boston College for a taste of the scholarly American theological scene on the subject. One professor routinely denies the physical resurrection. Of course, the fact that there are worse cases hardly means that some may not be misled by reading Sobrino’s work, and so perhaps a notification was in order. It seems, however, that the matter could be more charitably approached by saying that questions have been raised regarding these views, sometimes in connection with Sobrino’s work, and lest anyone be confused this is in fact the answer–the Gospels do reveal the divinity of Christ.
I especially think the points made about ecclesial structure are off base. Of course apostolicity is central to catholicity, but Sobrino hardly denies that. Christ the Liberator examines the creeds and other documents of the early councils precisely *as* authoritative texts, and it is only because of this view that his reading of those documents as pointing to an unfolding of the Kingdom of God in the poor is interesting. His argument is precisely that the apostolic tradition of the church leads one to understand a preferential option for the poor. Among liberation theologians his tacit assent of the documents Benedict wrote while at CDF in the 1980s is in stark contrast to Boff, Gutierrez, and others. Sobrino is not a Marxist, and doesn’t hold personal sin hostage to sociological sin.
Thus I think that a wiser course would have included the views of those who have given their imprimatur to his publications and attempted to bring him into closer dialogue and offered clarification rather than contrast based on misreading. Having spoken with Roger Haight, I was left to conclude that his allegations of being misread are based on a latent assumption that words don’t have real meanings, but I think that Sobrino’s claim has real merits that are being ignored here.
I think that the Magisterium has to declare the truth in order to preserver the faithful from error, but I think charity would indicate that statements of clarification can be made which are not accusations hanging one man for the crimes of many.
Bill, yes you have John’s formula down pat.
Arthur,
Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada is/was Basque.
Is there a Basque community in Nevada.
If I remember correctly Sen Laxalt was a close friend of Reagan’s (President Ronald) and the Republican Party chair in the 80s. He was a rancher I believe and always thought it was interesting he was of Basque descent.
I did know that St. Ignatius of Loyola was Basque, I was not aware of anyone else. Some friends of mine, who are deeper into history than I, believe while no doubt St. Ignatius is a saint, that he dabbled in illuminism and there was a gnostic influence on the Basques. Also, that iglutiniv (sic?) languages are different. Phonetic languages are superior and bring some type of philosophical and theological approach.
Somewhat convuluted and I may not be explaining it well.
I am not familiar with Fr. Sobrino’s work, but I have seen the damage that can be done to the faith, not by bald heretical statements, but by a refusal to confirm the truths of the faith, coupled with a continual, subtle erosion of confidence in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.
As with a lot of human communication, it is what is implied and left unsaid that can do the most harm. People are not as wary of attacks of this sort, and in this way it makes it past their defenses and can begin to influence their thinking and their faith. From my experience, this is the way liberal theology is most often promulgated. They can’t get away with stating their ridiculous beliefs plainly, so they concentrate on weakening the beliefs of others. I suffered through six months of it one weekend, at a diocesan “catechist training” seminar.
If a priest said openly in his homilies that he flatly did not believe Jesus rose from the dead, in most places he would be pretty well finished. But if he simply gives cotton candy homilies, laced with the occasional vague comments that undermine the scriptures and Church teaching… if he implies that, in this age of science, mature people don’t need to believe such things any more… he can go on for decades and cause great harm to the sheep he is charged with feeding.
I can believe that the CDF saw such tendencies in Fr. Sobrino’s writings and decided to call him on it. I hope we see more of it, actually.
Canon.
There is a huge Basque community in the northern part of the state (Reno and points east) that stretches into southern Idaho. The fellow I carpool to work with is Basque. And amongst afficianados, which Basque restaurants are the best is a serious subject of debate.
Sen. Laxalt (who has a building on campus named after him) had a brother Robert who was an award winning author who wrote several books about Basque diaspora community here.
Tim J.
Good commentary. Unfortuntely I have had to live more than half my Catholic life subject to this ..”continual, subtle erosion of confidence in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium”, and the same of which occurs not only through the pastors and priests of parishes, but also through the appointing of liberal or ‘feminist’ music directors, and other progressive minded laymen to lead the parish.
And what is this ‘progress’ that they achieved in my former parish? Inclusiveness and a ‘community spirit’ for all–which mean’t that quiet meditation and prayer before the highly ornate and centrally located Tabernacle was too ‘exclusive’ and must be done somewhere else besides the centrally located, and ‘communally significant’, altar. Now the tabernacle is located about ten feet from the side door, so that everyone can say good-by to Jesus as they leave the Mass. But never a ‘genuflection’, of course, and I think rarely even a sign of the cross! These would tend to cause a ‘communally’ uncharitable traffic jam.
And if you saw how large,’domed’, beautifully ornate, brass/bronze tabernacle is, you couldn’t imagine it any other place except the center of the large domed apse, for which it was obviously designed by the original architects.
And the 6′ statue of Our Lady, on one side of the sanctuary was the next to leave, and was put off to the side, about 20 feet from the Tabernacle.
However, it did seem to them very convenient to put a fiberglass, jaccuzzi style baptistry,(seemingly aquired from some Baptist supply house) which included a pump for continually flowing water, directly in front of the Altar!
So, if you “suffered through six months of it one weekend, at a diocesan “catechist training” seminar.”..I suffered these same types of things for about 10 years, until I felt I could no longer do any good in that parish..and moved to a conservative one about 2 miles away! I hated to have to leave, as if I was abandoning my childhood parish, where I also attended 7 years of Catholic schooling, but I couldn’t stand it any longer!
Viva Pope Benedict for trying to get rid of all this progressive and ‘inclusive’ baloney…and trying to put things back together!!
Also VIVA SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS!!… For clearly pointing out the sound, just and pious reasons for loving and honoring Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament!
The question is why was he even allowed to be read in the Parish group? It is simple, because now anything goes, Charismatics, protestanism, handholding, liturgical dance (no matter what the Girm says, go visit some church’s in Urban areas), Karl Rahner, you name it! Prayer with Pagans!!
bolding mine.
John, regarding your last sentence of this paragraph – didn’t Jesus consort, and probably even pray, with tax collectors and prostitutes? If so, wouldn’t we be following Jesus’ example when we “pray with pagans”? And isn’t following Jesus’ example a GOOD thing?
God bless JoAnna!
At least somebody’s got the Spirit of Christ pat down!
Ignatius of Loyola was a Basque from Francis Xavier was of the Navarre nobility. This made problems when they first met at the University of Paris. Francis wasn’t well-disposed at all to a former soldier who’d been part of the Spanish army which occupied Navarre. Francis’s family had lost their lands in that war.
Joanna wrote:
“John, regarding your last sentence of this paragraph – didn’t Jesus consort, and probably even pray, with tax collectors and prostitutes? If so, wouldn’t we be following Jesus’ example when we “pray with pagans”? And isn’t following Jesus’ example a GOOD thing?”
The problem, in my understanding, with “praying with pagans” is that they may not be praying to the same God you are. If they do not acknowledge Christ or even God the Father, and are praying to Gaea or a specific pagan deity, then praying with them is not acceptable. It is to whom they are praying, and not their sinful state, that is at issue here.
The problem, in my understanding, with “praying with pagans” is that they may not be praying to the same God you are. If they do not acknowledge Christ or even God the Father, and are praying to Gaea or a specific pagan deity, then praying with them is not acceptable. It is to whom they are praying, and not their sinful state, that is at issue here.
Praying “with” pagans doesn’t have to necessarily mean that the pagans are praying also… it could be one person praying for the pagan while the pagan is present.
Also, the litany of abuses cited by John all seemed to be problems with the Novus Ordo mass, so I was operating under the assumption that his “Praying with Pagans” comment was in reference to things that allegedly happen during the Novus Ordo mass. One would assume that if a pagan was at a Novus Ordo mass, s/he would be praying to the Christian God.
So John would really need to clarify what he means by “Praying with Pagans” for me to expound further on the subject.
Thanks, Mary Kay. Actually, I haven’t read one of his posts in several months, just others’ responses to them.
Isn’t Basque related to Finnish, Hungarian and Sanskrit–and obviously not a Latin based language (like Italian, Spanish, French and Romanian–and the derivatives thereof) or a Germanic language (English, German) or a Slavic language (the many Russian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Ukrainian etc).
My understanding is that Basque is so different than the other European languages and has Asian links but no known historical links or origins.
Some relation (grammar? words?) to Sanskrit (India) and/or Finnish (Finland) and/or Hungarian (Magyar).
St. Francis Xavier is a fascinating saint. St. Escriva is not Basque but is not one of his appellations “Navarre” (what was that mediocre movie with Matthew Broderick and Rutger Hauer citing Navarre) Sorry I am not initmately familiar with Spanish geography. I also met some Basque(s) in Mexico but they had lost their language by that time BUT where very proud of being Basque.
Canon–my understanding from when I was on a linguistic kick 20 years ago is that Finnish, Hungarian and Mongolian are in the Finno-Ugric language group and, as Jimmy said, Basque is not related to any language in Europe, or anywhere else.
Regarding Sobrino, I hear his kind of Biblical exigesis every Sunday from an 86-year old Bible professor at a nearby university. Strangely enough he’s the only priest we can get to preside over our Gregorian Chant Mass. As one of my friends said “He’s been wonderfully loyal to us. Too bad he’s a heretic.” Luckily the members of the congregation at our Mass have his number and no harm is being done. Except that during the homily we are regularly scandalized instead of being spiritually nurtured.
Cabesas duras son los bascos.
A lot of these heresy-hunters are really fighting not the exegetes of the Gospels but the Gospels themselves. Jordan Potter talks of the plain meaning of the Gospel texts — though in reality there is no plain teaching of Christ’s coequal divinity with the Father anywhere in the NT. But by Jordan Potter’s own criteria the Gospels would certainly be heretical, since the “plain meaning” of some texts is that God is “good” in a way that Jesus is not, or that the Father knows things the Son does not, or that the Father is greater than the Son (Jn 14.28). These texts have to be exegeted very ingeniously to avoid such implications. Likewise, the texts that traditionally support the Nicene and Chalcedonian truths have to be exegeted — their “plain meaning” does not suffice. See my comment on Sobrino in http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/joseph_ratzinge.html.
And isn’t this the very reason that we need an authoritative Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to make such fine exegesis?
As Pope Benedict mentioned in his discourse on St. Clement, a few weeks back, the faith of the Church is not an idea or philosophy, but rather, the revelation and teaching of Christ, which has been passed down to us by the Apostles. As always, it is this authority, made up exclusively of ordained bishops, popes and priests of the Catholic Church, and throughout the centuries,that has been responsible for all the exegesis and correct interpretation of Holy Scripture– the same such authoritative and inspired exegesis which forms the foundation for all other Catholic teachings and doctrine that we currently profess.