Posted on 04/22/2005 4:48:53 AM PDT by maryz
In that book, Joseph Ratzinger describes how he prefers Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, "whose crystal-clear logic seemed to me to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made." Anyone familiar with Augustine and Aquinas would at least pause to reflect on this remark from a man characterized in the press as an inquisitor, rottweiler, enforcer.
Augustine is the more mystical personality, closer in some ways to the "new age" impulses of our times. In the writings of Augustine, arguably the most complex mind Christianity has produced, the exercise of deep faith carries with it the possibility of what I would call a "high" experience in one's pursuit of and relationship to God. That was the Church of the 5th century. In our time, religion has become freighted with correct politics (the Left) or correct morality (the Right), rather than the substance of one's relationship with God.
I get the impression that Joseph Ratzinger--who reveres the early, transcendent Church Fathers (its "founding fathers")--is at heart more a vibrant 5th-century Christian than a stale 19th-century dogmatist; as conceivably was John Paul II, who often let himself slip into an Upward-directed reverie in public. In short, Benedict XVI looks to be very different from the stolid, authoritarian German described this week in the public prints.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Thanks for the link to that review. It contains lots of good information.
Swarm ping!
Lutheran ping!
I am currently plowing through City of God, and so have read more of Augustine than Thomas, but I do prefer Augustine.
Thomas has often been accused (and rightly so at times) of using circular logic. While I haven't read all of his stuff yet, what I have read is at times guilty of that.
Later, during the student turmoil of 1968, the entirety of the Christian tradition came under scathing attack from Marxist ideologists in the university. Ratzinger suggests that he was naive in assuming that the theology faculties would be a bastion of sanity: quite the opposite turned out to be the case. While his own lectures continued to be well attended and well received, many of his theological colleagues were all too eager to get on the good side of the putative revolution. At this point he began to discover what would later be called "the ecumenism of the trenches," as he made alliances with Evangelical (Lutheran) colleagues who appreciated what was at stake. "We saw that the confessional controversies we had engaged in up until now were small indeed in the face of the challenge we now confronted, which put us in a position of having to bear common witness to our common faith in the living God and in Christ, the incarnate Word."
We disagree on many of the details, and that is why we are still not one. But we agree on devotation to Jesus Christ. Because of this, all Christians should fight on the same side.
Dis-Appointing Catholic Revisionists: A Protestant Comment
These non-Roman Christians have, of course, their traditional disagreements with Rome, but in the face of the common opposition they understand that an educated and catholic sense of proportion requires they not only may, but--if they have come to the conclusion that traditional Catholics are to be honored with the name of Christian--must subordinate these perennial concerns to resistance on the common front. They must not allow their disagreements to weaken their support for each other. Touchstone stands as a witness to an alliance, and behind it a mind, that is far broader and deeper than the journal itself.
LOL! You'll likely get some argument from Thomists on board. I'm not qualified myself -- in my simple, peasant fashion, I am content to avail myself of the riches both have to offer, each in its season.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The fifth century was one of those watershed times...brilliant men of faith who helped build what was needed to carry the church through the collapse of the empire in the west.
Interesting that Benedict would be drawn to those who would be key to that - St. Augustine, St. Benedict, when our own civilization seems to be teetering on its own dark age.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
My two favorite time periods to study: the fifth century and the the 12th.
Maybe why I like both Augustine and Aquinas?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
When I first dived into Augustine, that struck me as a surprise! BTW, Augustine took much from Plato's philosophy, but he was not a Platonist. There where a group of heretics at that time called Platonist who accepted Plato's theology in whole, which Augustine himself wrote against.
Certainly interesting, as is his declaration to pursue church unity.
But, that rings hollow when in 2000, he published a document as part of the Church's doctrine office saying Protestant churches are not "proper" churches and are "deficient."
Yes I can see where that might be hard to swallow. Did you read anywhere why he said that?
But if he didn't think so, he would have become a Protestant.
Ach, du Lieber, Augustine.
You referring to that Carthaginian Bishop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.