Active Users:105 Time:26/02/2024 07:58:09 PM
That hardly counts: I'm talking about the degree to which one accepts the doctrines & perspective Cannoli Send a noteboard - 14/02/2012 12:59:08 PM
I know practicing Catholics with exemplary characters, but they don't think in the Catholic mindset because they were raised with different priorities or in different religious backgrounds, and there are some people who get it right away. I can't pass judgement on your situation, of course, or to what degree you had the Catholic mentality and perspective, but if you were able to shake it off at 19 and switch teams, you probably did not think in the manner in which I am referring (though there are many apostates or lapsed Catholics who, despite embracing different beliefs, retain the mentality as well).

On your first point, among the prophets only Elijah was physically taken into heaven without dying (the only other example in the entire Old Testament that comes to mind is Enoch), and so saying that someone is Jeremiah returned doesn't fit as easily into the idea of sent back from a paradise. In addition, there was a current in Judaism at that time that spoke of reincarnation. I'm not expecting Ratzinger to come out in favor of reincarnation, but I did expect him to perhaps mention it in passing.

The Pauline statement refuting it is at Hebrews 9:27 - "Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
Actually, "die once" kind of suggests the exact opposite of reincarnation to me. I'm not getting this. Or, was your original reference meaning that is was Paul who first refuted reincarnation?

My point about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is that Ratzinger completely ignored an opportunity to make statements about the Church's social doctrine. It would be like mentioning the "Render unto Caesar" phrase and saying nothing about the implied recognition that temporal and spiritual power derive from different sources.
Actually, that is the opposite meaning in Church teachings on the two. Rather the meaning of that verse is that both are legitimate because they derive ultimately from the same source. Later Christ tells Pilate that his legitimate authority as a ruler/judge derives from God, and Paul makes similar admonitions about following temporal authority in spite of the spiritual equality of all people. This could only work alongside such teachings as "you cannot serve God & Mammon" if legitimate temporal authority was not in conflict with divine authority, as it would if they derive from different sources. If they were from different sources, you could not follow the one as it would be a betrayal of your duty to the other.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
Jesus von Nazareth (Book I), by Joseph Ratzinger - 12/02/2012 12:52:30 AM 7826 Views
Do you know of any works by Ratzinger that directly address Ontological and Cosmological issues? *NM* - 12/02/2012 01:54:08 PM 750 Views
Not that I am aware of. - 12/02/2012 02:18:47 PM 1364 Views
Ah, that's a pity. - 12/02/2012 09:11:18 PM 1489 Views
Re: Jesus von Nazareth (Book I), by Joseph Ratzinger - 12/02/2012 11:11:45 PM 1550 Views
For the record, I was Catholic for the first 19 years of my life. - 12/02/2012 11:35:16 PM 1379 Views
That hardly counts: I'm talking about the degree to which one accepts the doctrines & perspective - 14/02/2012 12:59:08 PM 1408 Views

Reply to Message