Skip to main content

As He shows Himself

Trinity Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, if I haven't mentioned it already, follows the common tactic of exploring and slowly unpacking The Apostles' Creed. Almost two hundred pages in and we've only got the following part of the creed covered: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty." He spent a lot of time talking about what belief is and its rationality, before moving on to consider what the concept of God is, why God is one and why "Father." I've now gotten to the part of the book where Ratzinger is laying the ground for a discussion of "Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord..." In other words, Ratz is now discussing the concept of the Trinity; why the One God is said to have three persons. It's a famously and notoriously difficult doctrine but he handles it well:
The point at issue here is whether man in his relations with God is only dealing with the reflections of his own conciousness or whether it is given to him to reach out beyond himself and to encounter God himself... the answer found in those days [separates] the path of faith and a path bound to lead to the mere appearance of faith: God is as he shows himself. On this assertion rests the Christian relation with God; on it is grounded the doctrine of the Trinity; indeed, it is this doctrine. ... This means that when God appears as Son, who says "You" to the Father, it is not a play produced for man... but the expression of reality... Although it is true that we only know God as he is reflected in human thought, the Christian faith held firmly to the view that in this reflection it is Him that we know. Even if we are not capable of breaking out of the narrow bounds of our conciousness, God can nevertheless break into this conciousness and show himself in it... The enlargement of the bounds of human thinking necessary to absorb intellectually the Christian experience of God did not come of its own accord. It demanded a struggle, in which even error was fruitful... Thesis No. 1 God stands above singular and plural. He bursts both categories... To Him who believes in God as tri-une, the highest unity is not the unity of inflexible monotony. The model of unity or oneness toward which one should strive is consequently not the indivisibility of the atom, the smallest unity, which cannot be divided any further; the authentic unity is the unity created by love. The multi-unity that grows in love is a more radical, truer unity than the unity of the atom. Thesis No. 2 If the absolute is person, it is not an absolute singular... we shall have to acknowledge that "God is a person in the guise of a triple personality" explodes the naive, anthropomorphic concept of person. It declares in a sort of cypher that the personality of God infinitely exceeds the human kind of personality... the concept of person, illuminating as it is, once again reveals itself as an inadequate metaphor. Thesis No. 3 "Son" means being from another; thus, with this word [John] defines the being of this man [Jesus] as being from another and for others, as being completely open on both sides, [He, Christ] knows no reserved area of the mere "I"... It is the nature of Christian existence to receive and to live life as relatedness and, thus, to enter into that unity which is the ground of all reality and sustains it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi