Replies

I was assuming YOUR assessment...

***His [Kaspar's] language is often obscure, soft, and ambiguous concerning this central belief [the resurrection].***

... was accurate. My comments were based upon your assessment.

***Heck, you do him grave injustice if you offer your critique based on what I say about him.***

Then my injustice builds upon your injustice. I have not read Kasper. So let me state again with the caveat to Kasper... IF the shoe fits!

Cardinals displaying ambiguity on this issue ought to turn in the red cap! I baptized a twelve year old Sunday who is clear on the resurrection, could we expect Cardinals to be at least as clear?

Sitetest, one lesson of my inquirity into historical issues...

Ambiguity is often theological camoflage hiding heresy.

Dear drstevej,

I really don't want to be maneuvered into a position defending Cardinal Kasper or his work. The only reason I posted about this is because, having read some of his work, I don't recognize it from what is said here at FR. He does not, so far as I've ever read, deny the Resurrection.

"Ambiguity is often theological camoflage hiding heresy."

Eh, maybe. When I was at the Catholic University of America in the late '70s and early '80s, the heretics were pretty much straight up. I had a full professor of Catholic theology who calmly, plainly, clearly taught that the Resurrection was not an objective event, but rather "a psychological phenomenon in the minds and the hearts of the apostles and disciples." That is a direct quote. It is seared in my mind and on my heart. I will never, ever forget it.

And that's where my problem is, Steve. For months and months, I read all this stuff on FR about how Cardinal Kasper denies the Resurrection. So, I go out, buy a copy of his seminal work, and read it. Ugh! My brain hurts just thinking about it! It was not an easy read!

But what do I find in it? In the first part of the book, I find a subtle, brilliant effort eviscerating the position held by my old heretic professor. A work affirming the objective reality of the Resurrection. A work explicitly relying on Church teaching to sweep away the BS offered by the likes of my professor back at CUA.

But then, after that part of the book, Cardinal Kasper heads off for the clouds, beyond the definitions of the faith. He heads off for the clouds, but I fear that I have been unable to follow him. His language becomes obscure, at least to me. It becomes soft, at least to me. It becomes ambiguous, at least to me. But he is into areas of speculation, not knowledge, and I am in areas, with him, with which I am largely unfamiliar.

So, I really can't positively defend what he has to say, because, heck, I'm unsure I even understand it. However, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't orthodox. I'm sure that there are many things that you, as a Ph.D., know and understand, and can articulate, which may be beyond the understanding of other everyday Christians. It may seem that the language that you use, likely as not including terminology specific to your own areas of expertise, are obscure, even soft and ambiguous to those who are not well-versed in your areas of expertise. Heck, at times, Steve, when reading some of your longer, more in-depth theological postings, my eyes have glazed over in incomprehension. To me, at those time, your words appear at least obscure.

Perhaps the difficulty is that the audience for some of Cardinal Kasper's work comprises other theologians, and perhaps a more general audience may not be equipped to entirely understand it.

But I can say that Cardinal Kasper actually opposes the arguments of those who deny the Resurrection.

sitetest