Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI New Encyclical "CARITAS IN VERITATE" (CHARITY AND TRUTH)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html ^ | June 29,2009 | Pope Benedict XVI

[Pyro7480]

First, this is the work of a genius, a patristic genius. This letter will likely rank far above the more pedestrian encyclicals of +Paul VI

It is interesting you say that, because Benedict quoted extensively from +Paul VI.

[redgolum]

This can only work if morality is upheld.

And that is the huge fly in the ointment. While I have not finished the encyclical yet (plan on it soon), in skimming I see the same problem that exists in Distributism (not sure on the spelling).

For this to work, there needs to be a powerful body governed by moral men. Other wise, it will simply be used as a hammer against adversaries.

Many good points, but while he explicitly says this is not a Utopian thing, I fear that it is in the world we live in today. There were times when such a thing could have worked.

[CTrent1564]

Kolokotronis:

Great series of posts by you. Good to see our esteemed brothers from the Eastern Church here with us defending the Bishop of Rome and as you say, there will be those on both the right and the left, that will try to interpret this thru political lens. The Introduction of the Encylical, as with everything the Pope does, is interpreted thru the person of Christ

For example, Pope Benedict in his book “In the Beginning: A Catholic understanding of the Story of Creation and Fall” writes (pp.9-10):

” For the Christian the Old Testament represents, in its totality, and advance towards CHrist; only when it attains to him does its real meaning, which was gradually hinted at, become clear. Thus every individual part derives its meaning from the whole, and the whole derives its meanings from its end-—from Christ. Hence we only interpret an individual text theologically correctly [as the Fathers of the Church recognized and as the faith of the Church in every age has recognized] when we see it as a way that is leading us every forward, when we see in the text where this way is tending and what its inner direction is.”

Everything the Pope writes is interpreted thru this hermaneutic principle, i.e Typology, which is the orthodox Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Fathers.

As for pushing Marxism, the book I cited from “heavily criticizes Marxist ideology, as does every book I have ever read by the Pope including such works as “Spirit of the Liturgy and “Principles of Catholic Theology”,

Also Kolokotronis with respect to the Church Fathers:

Pope Benedict and the and his book entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones For a Fundamental Theology”, the Pope in Chapter 2, entitled Scripture and Tradition, lays out the case for Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as expressed in the Creeds of the Church, the Liturgy and writings of the Church Fathers, and how they are all important in building a foundation for orthodox doctrine. Now, with respect to the Church Fathers, Pope Benedict (pp. 148-151) makes some interesting points. First, The Canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or at least to the undivided Church of the first centuries, of which they were the representatives. It is through their [The Church Fathers] efforts that precisely those “books” that today we call “New Testament” were chosen from a multitude of other available literary texts and that the “Greek version of the OT” was joined to them, that it was interpreted in terms of them, and together became known as “Holy Scripture” The Pope continues and notes that a book was recognized as “canonical” if it was read in the Liturgy of the Church [public worship]. By Church, the Pope notes that it means that the numerous Eastern Churches had their own lists and customs, but in the end, all came to accept the same set of books. The Pope notes of the Gnostic texts, which aspired to become scripture but states that it was the anti-Gnostic Church Fathers whose writings against the Gnostics drew the line in the Church. In summary, the canon, as canon, would be inconceivable without the intellectual movement to which patristic theology bears witness.

Second, in addition to the Bible, the Church Fathers were instrumental in formulating the important symbola of all Christendom [ie. the Creeds and Confessions of Faith] and Finally, in the ancient undivided Church, the reading of Sacred Scripture and the confession of faith [Creeds] were primarily Liturgical acts of the whole assembly gathered around the Risen Lord. Thus, the Pope notes, it was the ancient Church, and thus the Fathers, that created the fundamental forms of Christian Liturgy

The Pope concludes by stating that given these 3 points, theology will always be indebted to the Church Fathers and will have cause to return again and again to them. The Bible, as the Pope notes, comes to us by way of history. If we ignore history, we become entangled and thus remain bound to our own thinking and reflect only ourselves. Therefore, the Pope concludes that the Church Fathers are still essential and must not be seen as a matter of cataloguing in a museum dedicated to what has been. No, “The Fathers are the common past of all Christians!.” And in the rediscovery of the common possession lies the hope for the future of the Church, the task for her—and our-present.

In summary Kolokotronis, you understand Pope Benedict better than many Catholics I deal with.

Pax et bonum

[Kolokotronis]

“It is interesting you say that, because Benedict quoted extensively from +Paul VI.”

The Pope is nothing if not a perfect gentleman and in any event, de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est!

[CTrent1564]

Kolokotronis:

Now, I do want to clarify one thing, I think we really don’t know Bishop Martino’s motives, and there is a growing consensus among Catholic Bishops to start enforcing Canon 815 in stricter terms, which of course only deals with Latin-Rite Catholics as Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome have their own Canons consistent with the various Eastern Traditions [Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinopile, etc]

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

“In summary Kolokotronis, you understand Pope Benedict better than many Catholics I deal with.”

Thank you for the kind words. When Pope Benedict was elected, an Orthodox hierarch commented to me that his teachings would be received with enthusiasm among the Orthodox because “he speaks our language.” He was not at all sure how Latins would react.

[Kolokotronis]

"Now, I do want to clarify one thing, I think we really don’t know Bishop Martino’s motives,..."

I agree. We also don't know Arius' motives in preaching his theology, though we are free to speculate, but we do know they provoked +Nicholas into slugging him. +Nicholas' motives on the other hand, are pretty obvious. :)

[CTrent1564]

Kolokotronis:

Yes, I am aware that St. Nicholas belted Arius! But lets be fair, Bishop Martino is not stating as Arius did, that “there was a time when He [The Father] was not yet a Father; Later he became So”, which of course was Arius’s interpretation of Proverbs Chapter 8 and particularly Proverbs 8: 22-31.

He could be an overzealus Bishop in terms of doing things for getting his name in the paper [again he could be] then again maybe not. Who knows?

I think it is fair to say that you don’t agree with his pastoral approach as a Bishop, which is fair. However, to accuse him of a heresy of the like of Arius I think is also unfair.

Anyway, good to see you back in the Catholic Threads

[Kolokotronis]

“Yes, I am aware that St. Nicholas belted Arius!”

I didn’t doubt for a moment that you were well aware of what I was talking about. That’s why I mentioned it, CT! :)

“Bishop Martino is not stating as Arius did, that “there was a time when He [The Father] was not yet a Father; Later he became So”, which of course was Arius’s interpretation of Proverbs Chapter 8 and particularly Proverbs 8: 22-31.”

Agreed. Arius denied the Orthodox understanding of The Trinity and the Nature of Christ. Martino ranks those Orthodox beliefs and their defense lower than his concept of anti-abortionism.

“He could be an overzealus Bishop in terms of doing things for getting his name in the paper [again he could be] then again maybe not. Who knows?”

I agree, though the Fathers taught that the desire to rule is the mother of all heresies. Given Martino’s apparent eagerness to insert himself into the affairs of another diocese, the wisdom of the Fathers might be right on the mark in this instance.

“However, to accuse him of a heresy of the like of Arius I think is also unfair.”

You misunderstand me. Martinoism isn’t Arianism by a long shot, given a few moments dispassionate thought its foolishess becomes apparent, but all heresy is a poisonous weed, especially when it is taught within the Church by one charged with the shepherding of the laity.

“Anyway, good to see you back in the Catholic Threads”

:)