|
Joseph Ratzinger
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is most widely known for his strict adherence to the Vatican. Ratzinger earns his reputation of being conservative from several actions he has taken to stop several publications of theologians and for his conservative theological writings. He holds the position of prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger is a prominent figure in today's Catholic Church. When the opinion of the Church is given on issues Cardinal Ratzinger is usually involved.Colleen Bartholomew and Krista Stevens Ratzinger was born in Germany on April 16,1927. His education was many times interrupted with the struggle of World War II in Europe. His experience of the Nazis came to influence his opinion of authority in the Church. John Allen says that “Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarian-ism. In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restrictting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes” (2). After the war he entered the seminary and was ordained in 1951. He then received a doctorate in theology from University of Munich in 1953. After taking many positions as professor he was ordained an archbishop in 1977 and served in the Arch-diocese of Munich. Pope Paul VI named Ratzinger a Cardinal and Pope John Paul II named him prefect for the Congregation in 1981. It is the position of prefect that will make the Cardinal so well known and make the biggest impact on the Church. Ratzinger's position as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith puts him in an interesting position. As prefect “he is the Vatican's chief protector and promoter of Catholic doctrine, second in power only to the Pope, and certainly one of the most important men in the Roman Catholic Church today” (Arroyo 1). Ratzinger's position requires him to examine work of theologians and examine the state of the church today. Even Ratszinger himself calls his position “uncomfortable”. He says that his office in the Vatican deals “with all the problems of the Church- problems of relativism, of heresies, of unacceptable theologies, difficult theologians and so on. Also with the disciplinary cases, also problem of pedophiles is our problem. We are really in this Congregation confronted with the most difficult aspects of the life of the Church today” (Arroyo 5). It is because of this wide range of issues to deal with that Ratzinger in his position of prefect has become a recognizable figure worldwide. He has garnered much press attention as he condemns and confronts controversial theologies. He has had to stop production of many theologian's writings. John Allen gives brief examples of the theologians that Ratzinger has censored or opposed, he lists “Fr. Charles Curran, an American moral theologian who advocates a right to public dissent from official church teaching; Fr. Matthew Fox, an American known for his work on creation spirituality; Sr. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian whose thinking blends liberation theology with environmental concerns; and Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a Sri Lankan interested in how Christianity can be expressed through Eastern concepts” (2). These are just a few examples of the hard lines he has taken in the Church. Ratzinger's involvement in Vatican II is significant, but not as significant as his position currently of the reforms brought about from Vatican II. Ratzinger did attend Vatican II as “a peritus, or chief theological advisor to Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne, Germany” (Hook 2). Ratzinger in an interview with Raymond Arroyo has said that the reforms made in the liturgy during Vatican II were not well implemented. He explains what the reforms have done to the liturgy saying “it [liturgy] is, more the presence of their own experiences and ideas than meeting with the Presence of the Lord in the church” (2). Ratzinger is largely opposed to the allowance of reforms after Vatican II to allow different cultures to have their own expression of the liturgy. He says that the Church should make the liturgy more universal and apart of this would be having more Latin elements in the liturgy. He does support the move the council made to allow the liturgy to be in the vernacular, but he believes that the Latin should have a more predominant role than it currently has. Ratzinger has been critical not of the council itself but the reforms made from the work of the council. Jeffrey Gros, F.S.C, says that “Cardinal Ratzinger possesses a wider theological background than his predecessors and many of his colleagues, both in the Roman Catholic system and in other churches” (461). Ratzinger is no doubt intellectually astute, and from this knowledge he often takes conservative views on many issues, including liturgy and inter-religious dialogue. In his article “Rereading Reform,” Nathan Mitchell quotes Ratzinger as “opining that the 'drastic manner' in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass 'provoked extremely serious damage' to the Church” (462). Mitchell goes on to quote Ratzinger as saying '“I am convinced,'...'that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy” (462). Mitchell says that Ratzinger also speaks of the “damage” that resulted from liturgical changes as well as a “wholesale replacement” of one liturgy for another. Ratzinger based his admonitions on the idea that “liturgies are 'formed through history,' not 'produced' (like a film) by professional specialists or curial potentates.” So he feels that any changes made to the liturgy should develop over time and not at the hands of a council. Mitchell suggests, however, that Ratzinger may not be accurate in his condemnations of Paul VI's work. He says that the changes advocated by Vatican II in regard to the liturgy were no more dramatic than changes wrought by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Furthermore, he says that in the four centuries following Trent, a liturgical movement had developed among Christians that advocated reforms to the Roman Rite. Mitchell concludes his article by saying that “Pope Paul VI sounds like the one truly dedicated to the classic Roman principle that liturgy is formed through history' by a 'vital process,' while Cardinal Ratzinger sounds - in spite of his protests - like a mascot for nonhistorical orthodoxy.” In addition to holding conservative views in regard to liturgy, Ratzinger is also know for being conservative in regard to inter-religious dialogue. This conservatism can best be seen in an incident in which Ratzinger commented on Edith Stein, a Jewish-bom Catholic nun who was killed in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II and later beatified by John Paul II. Ratzinger said that “Finding faith in Christ, she entered into the full inheritance of Abraham.... She turned in her Jewish heritage to have a new and diverse heritage. But in entering into unity with Christ she entered into the very heart of Judaism” (Ratzinger's 'Land Mine). On “the subject of the Catholic dialogue with Jews, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was quoted as saying, 'This always implies our union with the faith of Abraham but also the reality of Jesus Christ, in which the faith of Abraham finds fulfillment” (Ibid.). These quotes caused consternation among Jewish leaders. Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, international relations director of the American Jewish Committee, and Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, “have said that future relations between the Vatican and the world Jewish community are threatened by comments made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger” (Ibid.). Tanenbaum goes on to say that Ratzinger's comments contradicts everything that John Paul II as said in regard to Jews and Judaism. He says that the Pope has “clearly affirmed God's covenant with the Jews is permanent and not subject to recall” (Ibid). If this is the case, then “it is 'incumbent on the Vatican' to make clear that Cardinal Ratzinger's views are his own and not of the Holy See. 'If the Vatican and the American Catholic hierarchy were to allow Ratzinger's views to stand as normative, I have no question that it would make further relations between the Vatican and the world Jewish community impossible” (Ibid). Ratzinger has written on a variety of subjects, including ecumenism, women in the Church, and the catechism of the Church. He is a well-rounded theologian who is known for his hard conservative position. It is because of his hard conservative position that he is regarded as both a savior and an enemy of the Church. Works Cited Joseph Ratzinger, “Liturgy as Rite” The Spirit of the Liturgy San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000 Abstract by Colleen Bartholomew Cardinal Ratzinger has written on many topics ranging from ecumenism to liturgy. His books and theological writing reinforce his conservative and staunch adherence to Vatican position. One of his notable works on the liturgy is The Spirit of Liturgy. In this book Cardinal Ratzinger explores what is liturgy and the elements that make up the liturgy. In part four of the book Ratzinger explores the form liturgy takes. His first explanation is that of what rite is. This is fitting since the form liturgy takes is ritual. He explains why and how the liturgy took the form of ritual and why it helps achieve liturgy's purpose. As he explains what a rite is and its part in liturgy, Ratzinger's continuing conservatism is expressed. The first step Ratzinger takes in this chapter is to address the issue that the connotation that rite carries with it is negative. Most people think of the word “rite” as static and boring. He says that the danger of “rite” having this connotation is that when rite is combined with liturgy it is assumed that rite prohibits creativity and a “living liturgy” (159). To address this concern Ratzinger explains what the word rite really means in the Christian Church. He says that rite relates to what orthodoxy (in its early form) means- that it is the attempt to worship God in the right way. As apart of this he says that the right worship of God is the “communion with the paschal journey”, which is the Eucharist (160). Ratzinger has defined rite as the worship of God and that this worship of God is best completed through the Eucharist, a form of liturgy. After defining rite Ratzinger seeks to explore where the rites we have came from. To do this he takes an historical approach beginning with the patristic Church. He explains that there are three main sources of the rites that are in existence today. These sources are the cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Theses cities were flourishing and central places for the Christian faith in the patristic Church. Specifically he explains that the Roman Rite that was in existence in the medieval church was a combination of three rites: Roman, Eastern African, and Gallican. The Roman source is the most apparent influence we see in today's liturgy. The Eastern African source is closely tied to the Roman source so it is not very different than what we see today. The Gallican source was mainly cut from liturgy at Vatican II. The Gallican source was poetic and had Eastern influences in it. Throughout this section he explains the work of many influential church figures and theologians throughout history ranging from the apostles to John Chrysostom. Next, Ratzinger explores what the historical approach he just took tells about “rite”. He develops four statements of what rite means in light of the historical background. First, rites are “anchored in the time and place of the event of diving revelation”. This means that rites, even the ones in existence today, are based on tradition that goes back to the very moment of the Incarnation. Secondly, rites are influenced not by one source but all sources influence one another. Our western rite that we experience today is not solely Roman but is influenced by eastern rites and less predominant rites. Thirdly, rites are beyond human control. Rites are ultimately the work of God and apart from human control of them. Finally, rites exhibit organic growth. This means that the liturgy is not static but always changing and growing. These are four very important characteristics of rite that give the reader a deeper understanding of the nature of rites. In the final section of this part of The Spirit of Liturgy Ratzinger asks again what does rite mean in the Christian liturgy. He reiterates that rite is the “expression that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church's identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action” (166). What Ratzinger means, and further explains, is that the liturgy is the church. The very expression of what it means to be church is the liturgy. The liturgy, Ratzinger explains, is connected to the deposit of faith that is found in scripture. He says that the liturgy has the same authority of scripture. Rite and the structure that rite implies is necessary because it is the “unspontaneity and pre-existing identity [that] can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift”(168). Rite allows heaven and earth to connect in liturgy and because the structure was made through growth guided by God, it is something that the church does not control but God controls. Joseph Ratzinger, "The Ministerial Office and the Unity of the Church" Journal of Ecumenical Studies 1, no. 1 (2001) Abstract by Krista Stevens Joseph Ratzinger begins his article, “The Ministerial Office and the Unity of the Church,” by saying that the ministerial office and the unity of the church point to “one of the key positions of mutual understanding in regard to Christian reality on the part of Catholic and Reformed Christians” (42). He goes on to say that the Catholic concept of for determining the nature of the Church includes word, sacrament, and ecclesiastical office. The addition of the office to the elements of word and sacrament is important in regard to the breaking away of the Reform churches from the Catholic church. He says that the “elimination of the third element marks the complete break by the Reformation in terms of the concept of the Church....the Word became independent in relation to the Church, and consequently it came to be understood as possessing an importance in its own right” (43). Ratzinger says that not recognizing the Office in the nature of the Church creates a dilemma between Protestant and Catholics: “Protestant theology defines the Church without the notion of the Office. It grasps the Word, in effect as an independent corrective of the Office. Catholic theology, on the other hand, regards the Office as a criterion of the Word. Instead the Word lives in the Church as the Church lives from the Word - a relationship of mutual dependence and relatedness” (43). He goes on to say that in order to solve this problem, he wants to look at the Bible, what the Bible understands by the Church, and what meaning the Bible gives to the notion of Office. Ratzinger begins to address this problem by first looking at what the Church is. He says at its simplest, the Church defines itself as Ekklesia, a word that “signified a gathering of the people of Israel” (44). When Christians use this word in reference to themselves, they are expressing that the hope of God's salvation has come to fulfillment and that in their gathering. God's saving Word has started. This application oi Ekklesia can be used in reference to various forms of church, including “cult of liturgical community, local church, and total church” (44). These three are tightly unified in that there “is one entity, the people whom God has gathered in this world. This one Church of God exists concretely in the different local communities and realizes itself in the liturgical gathering” (44-45). So through God's Word and through the Bread, the Body of the Lord that is given to Christians at their liturgical gatherings, Christians become a unified people. So Christians are “destined to liver from the Body and from the Word of Christ” (45). Ratzinger says that later theology will define these components of the Church as communio and fides, and it is these factors that Philip Melancthon kept from the Catholic understanding of Church throughout his Reform movement. Melancthon, however, did not retain the concept of the ministerial office. Ratzinger next attempts to define the nature and existence of the Ministerial Office. He says that from Christ alone come all legitimate Christian offices and that Christ was “divinely commissioned” in that he “came to men under the demand, under the 'Must,' so to speak....He came from above with that 'Fullness of Power' - His Deputization from God - and with that 'Mission' as He Whom the Father had sent” (46). This divine commission continued in Jesus' disciples and continues in today's Church. The office of Jesus' disciples was to be the twelve, as a “representation and an anticipation of the new Israel” (46). Ratzinger next looks at the writings of St. Paul and says that in Paul's writings, we see not only his connection with the commission of the other disciples, but a connection with the “Kergyma of Jesus, to the paradosis of the twelve - a connection to the historical line which goes back to the Historical Jesus” (48). According to Ratzinger, it is within this relationship that we can see the historical connection between Church Office and tradition and the disciples. Next, Ratzinger looks at further developments of the structure of the Office. He says that around the same time that Paul was writing, there came to be a blending of Paul's ideas of episkopoi and diakonoi with the Judeo-Christian idea of order characterized by presbyteroi. From this blend “came the regular form of the Office of the early Church” (49). This combination is important because it connects Church Office with service of “the general, the common priesthood, and in that framework, a service of order - but also, a service to freedom of the spirit” (50). Ratzinger says that on thing is certain: “The New Testament Office is first determined by the Word: it is a service responsible to the Word. The fact that this Word found its genuine resting place in the Eucharistic celebration soon allowed the service of the Word and the service of the Table to become integrated, one with another. Out of this came that form of Office which has remained characteristic of the Catholic Church” (50). Church Office began to more fully develop in the second century during which “the Gentile-Christian duality of offices - bishops and deacons - was joined with the Judeo-Christian office of presbyter to form a three-fold series - bishop, presbyter, and deacon” (53). Out of this understanding came what Ratzinger calls a horizontal structure in which the bishop is a bishop “only insofar as he stands in communion with his fellow bishops. No single bishop is the successor of a single specific apostle. Rather the totality of bishops through their 'collegium' continued the 'collegium' of the apostles, the single bishop therefore stood in apostolic succession only through his membership in this collegium” (54). This common existence includes the communion of all Catholics, and it is within this community that the structure of the Church can be seen. Later this idea of ekklesia “was drawn into the Church of the City of Rome” (54) giving primacy to the bishop of Rome, although this primacy does not indicate the destruction of the episcopacy. Ratzinger says that “this primacy can be logically understood only in terms of the eucharistic ecclesiology which has just been described....Primacy means the ability and the right to decide in binding manner within the 'Communion framework' where the Word of the Lord is correctly witnessed and consequently where a true communion is found. In Catholic terms such an office is not only legitimized but it is demanded within the Church by the fact that the Lord Himself set up the double structure of apostolic commission and special Petrine commission - the double office of witness and first witness” (55). Ratzinger concludes his article by summing up the importance of this understanding of Office. He points out that while the Catholic understanding of Office cannot be traced back to Scripture, it is nonetheless biblical in nature in the “reciprocal binding of Witness to Word and Word to witness and the working-out of that structure in the twofold office of witness and first-witness” (55). The Reform understanding, therefore, in which defines the Church without Office is “simply not found in Scripture, that is, it is absent precisely from that (Biblical!) Word to which the Reformers were referring. The Biblical answer to our question is plain and unequivocal” (56). Joseph Ratzinger, "Primacy, Episcopate, and Apostolic Succession" Abstract by Kevin Phillips Father (now cardinal) Ratzinger points out that “Roman Catholic” is a contradiction in terms. Catholic means by definition universal, yet Roman denotes that they follow Rome. Rome is primary, but it is also universal. Rome has the ability to declare infallible statements yet the episcopate also has this ability, for all bishops are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession was finalized when the very early Church was defending themselves against the Gnostics. To do this they had to define Tradition as the words that were passed down from the Apostles, not, however, in the same way as the secret knowledge of the Gnostics. This gave apostolic history more weight, with Peter and Paul holding the most weight. (At this point Ratzinger challenges Protestants by saying that in the early Church Tradition and Word were inseparable and identical.) Ratzinger concludes that there can not be a Rome without a Catholic and vice versa. If Rome were to excommunicate the whole episcopate, Rome would meaningless because it wouldn't be universal. But if the whole episcopate were to excommunicate Rome, they would be meaningless because they would no longer be Catholic. While this sounds very Rome-centered, it is not. It says that other bishops need the Pope to get power yet it admits that without the other bishops the Pope would be powerless. The bishops in effect have the power to make what the Pope teaches universal. A Joseph Ratzinger Bibliography
|