Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."GERMAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."
The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"
Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."
Sounds a lot like Obama's BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Something tells me that he’ll be getting a call from the Pope on this one.
Well, that's mildly encouraging news about the German episcopate.
And the authority for this proclamation comes from where?
Me thinks he never read the bible.
Can he be excommunicated for this?
Hmmm, I think I’ll take God’s word on Christs purpose over the good Arch-Bishops. I think he needs to go look up the word propitiation.
It really is sad that entire churches have pastors, preachers, priests, deacons, what have you that are leading them this far astray.
an Archbishop who does not know a basic Church teaching that we learned from our parents and Sister Helen Ann in grade school. Pathetic.
The Touch of the Master’s Hand
It was battered and scarred,
And the auctioneer thought it
hardly worth his while
To waste his time on the old violin,
but he held it up with a smile.
“What am I bid, good people”, he cried,
“Who starts the bidding for me?”
“One dollar, one dollar, Do I hear two?”
“Two dollars, who makes it three?”
“Three dollars once, three dollars twice, going for three,”
But, No,
From the room far back a gray bearded man
Came forward and picked up the bow,
Then wiping the dust from the old violin
And tightening up the strings,
He played a melody, pure and sweet
As sweet as the angel sings.
The music ceased and the auctioneer
With a voice that was quiet and low,
Said “What now am I bid for this old violin?”
As he held it aloft with its’ bow.
“One thousand, one thousand, Do I hear two?”
“Two thousand, Who makes it three?”
“Three thousand once, three thousand twice,
Going and gone”, said he.
The audience cheered,
But some of them cried,
“We just don’t understand.”
“What changed its’ worth?”
Swift came the reply.
“The Touch of the Masters Hand.”
And many a man with life out of tune
All battered with bourbon and gin
Is auctioned cheap to a thoughtless crowd
Much like that old violin
A mess of pottage, a glass of wine,
A game and he travels on.
He is going once, he is going twice,
He is going and almost gone.
But the Master comes,
And the foolish crowd never can quite understand,
The worth of a soul and the change that is wrought
By the Touch of the Masters’ Hand.
Myra Brooks Welch
Well there you have it. If that’s not outright heresy, I don’t know what is.
DUH
I must be missing something here.
O sure we are going to change the Bible based on this man’s opinion.
I would laugh; but Darwin’s evolution theory was one man’s opinion ... that did change the way many people view the world.
Let us not take this too lightly.
“Archbishop Zollitsch, this is the Holy Father. We need to talk.”
Is this mere heresy, or outright apostasy?
Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."
There is a possibility that the bishop's views are misrepresented or at least slanted by the interviewer.
There are at least three authentically Catholic ways to understand the sacrifice of Christ. We in the West are most familiar with St. Anselm's Atonement theory: Christ dies to atone, or satisfy, the offense given God by Adam. However, there is also Ransom theory where the sacrifice of Christ is seen as a direct confrontation with Satan (we don't need to go into that theory in the context of the article). And thirdly, and pertinently to the views of the bishop, there is a Pedagogical theory, according to whish Christ died to give us an example of moral living, -- if you will, in solidarity with man's suffering.
The heresy is to say that it is one and not the other. The problem is with "instead... only" part, which I reproduced in bold, but it is not a quote from the bishop. It is possible that he merely was pointing out that third view on the sacrifice is also valid, without rejecting the atonement theory altogether.
Further, as was already pointed out on this thread, the Atonement theory itself can be interpreted in a heretical way if it is intermixed with predestination of the reprobates. The Catholic teaching is that Christ did die for all men in the sense that salvation is available to all men, but it is not efficacious for sinners. So both statements, "Christ dies for all" and "Christ died for many/some" are correct statements.
John 3:16
There are quite a few examples of Word and anti-Word developing. First, Notre Dame, then Georgetown, now this comes to the fore.
We may be seeing a development foretold.
This is outright heresy from this Archbishop.
This can only be heresy and needs to be nipped in the bud. We see where this sort of thinking has led the Episcopal Church and other protestant churches.
“Mr. Williamson is impossible and irresponsible,” Zollitsch, chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, told the magazine in an article published Saturday. “I now see no room for him in the Catholic church.”
Interesting.
Clearly His Excellency is wrong on this point. However, he may be confused with the finer point that, “God, being infinitely powerful, is in no way intrinsically HARMED by any action of Man, therefore, in a technical sense, Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t to somehow ‘make up’ for something Man did to God, but rather to enable Man to once again come to God fully.”
That is, the sin sacrifice was necessary to restore MAN to his intended state (a state of full and complete friendship with God). It was not, nor could it ever be considered some kind of “repayment” to God, because again God being infinite in all respects cannot “loose” anything.
Just to clarify. I do believe the above is Catholic teaching.