Replies

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

Well said. Your CUA prof reminds me of an OT professor I had at Emory Uinversity's Candler School of Theology (Mythology ???). BTW, I did a semester there.

The course was Old Testament introduction and the professor was big time into source and form criticism in denial of Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch.

One student raised his hand after several weeks of the professor's dissecting of the Bible to prove multiple authorship, etc. and asked, "Professor Tucker, are we supposed to tell this to our congregations? They'd lynch us!" Dr. Tucker responded, "Tell them whatever you want, this is the way it is."

At the break I wrote the following verse on a 3X5 card and slipped it into his book.

James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

On the midterm in the course we were to take Genesis 37-39 and divide the story up into the various sources using the techniques we had been taught. I played the game and received an A on the exam. After getting my grade I told the teacher I was bothered by it. He was surprised and said, "I remember you did quite well." My response was, "What bothers me is that I am convinced I can take any single author book and use the same approach to erroneously 'prove' multiple authorship."

I got a C in the course. I fear his final grade in eternity will be much worse!