The Catholic Church, where all truths come together (ed. Lindau, ed. February 2010, pp. 117, with a foreword by Marco Sermarini) is smooth as nice brochure that tells the path the conversion to the Catholic Church of the author. At the same time, however, is a mine of surprising considering the obvious fact of our time and detractors of the Catholic faith. The first assertion
prophetic The Church is the only one to defend anything when you stupidly despised. It already is making its unique role as the champion of reason in the twentieth century, as in the nineteenth it was the tradition. (p. 19).
Even Pope John Paul II along with his teaching, I remember all of his pronouncements to the beautiful encyclical Fides et Ratio , and even more so now with Pope Benedict XVI, it evident the truth of this statement of Chesterton. The Master of Regensburg speech of 2006, which brings to the fore the close link between faith and reason, I would say a connection ontological "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature" certainly is beyond the polemic Frame countries Muslims, a challenge that should give pause to the West and its supposed "rationalism" in Margherita Hack. Odifreddi and company singing beano to represent you when to deliberately speak of obscurantism of faith. But on this subject I have already made some remarks which I refer ( Why atheism is not scientific, but an act of faith in anything. ).
I must here observe the brightness of the example put forward by Chesterton as a demonstration of the assumption that the Church is the only one to defend anything when you stupidly attacked and I stress the "stupid". At this point my thoughts turn to abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, the divorce itself. Rather pleasantly surprising as the example cited by the author is the defense of "tradition", a typical topic of Protestants (remember the Lutheran sola scriptura, sola fide).
It should be noted that for Chesterton "the mark of faith is not the tradition is conversion." (p. 20), given that Catholicism is in itself a novelty in the sense that more "acts in its environment with the vigor and vitality typical of a new thing." (p. 13). Even in this statement is an assonance with a reflection on the faith of Pope Ratzinger: "At that time [immediately after the council] I had sent a little work to Hans Urs von Balthasar, who as always thanked me immediately with a thank you card and the added a meaningful phrase that became unforgettable for me: Do not assume, but to propose the faith. It was imperative that struck me. The wide range in new areas was good and necessary, but only from the assumption that itself drew from the light source of the faith and be supported by this light. Faith did not stay by itself. It can not ever just assume as a matter of if already completed. Must continually be relived. And since it is an act that embraces all dimensions of our existence, must also always be reconsidered and again and again demonstrated " (from The faith of the Church of Rome, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger during the Roman Synod, January 18, 1993, must report to present the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The text has appeared in the Papers-New Series of the Roman Synod, No.2, the Vicariate of Rome, 1993, pp. 67-73).
The tradition is thus the possibility of recovery for the individual, to be contemporary with Christ, the following personnel in a company that is the Catholic Church.
Returning to the observations of Chesterton about "the indifference of the nineteenth century of tradition and its attachment to the documents" he concludes that both are "absurd" (p. 19). The comparison claimed is adamant in his wit: "It was like saying that men always lie to children, but never wrong to write the books." (p.19 f.).
fact, if they say the Protestants to the Catholic tradition (the Catholic Church) has adulterated, counterfeit, the true meaning of Holy Scripture (which is to say, "men always lie to children") why the same men, the Catholic Church (since, as noted in Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics, they have written, belongs to them) do not mind when he writes? (That is, "but never wrong to write the books?"). It seems obvious, yet these "obvious errors" is chock the acrimony anti-Catholic.
Moreover, it is clear that those who began to undermine the bona fide tradition, to give rise to a culture of suspicion , sooner or later come to undermine its very foundations: those of Scripture. It 'obvious quagmire facing the current biblical exegesis.
Chesterton observes in this regard: "Why would the man in the street would say that a particular roll is not stupid, but the only truth on the basis of which every thing else should be ordered? Why venerate rolls should not be just supestizioso who venerate the statue of that particular procession? " (P. 28), since it is a roll "which had always belonged to them and had always been part of their tips, tricks, if it was?" (ibid.). Also here are the obvious allusions to the arguments "unreasonable" to the Protestant critique of the Catholic Church holds all the tricks, and including the roll (the Bible) to fool the people.
Here one thinks spontaneously of the considerations that Pope Benedict XVI makes modern exegesis in his book "Jesus of Nazareth", commented by Julian Carròn , head of Communion and Liberation, (in a report which I recommend reading the full )
"Exactly this is the misleading impression that culturally imposed on us all that we know little of Jesus, and even naive in believing that we are still in the truth of this figure! The Pope continues: "This impression has now penetrated deeply into the consciousness of Christianity" (p. 8). Many Christians have never read these books, but it is as if this suspicion of the virus had entered into them. As examples of the latter claim, let me tell you about an incident that happened many years ago when I was a religion class in high school in Madrid. After an introductory overview, I was going to submit the documents that tell the origins of Christianity. And I wrote on the blackboard the word Gospel. I had just finished writing when a student asked for the floor and interrupted: "Wait a minute. The Gospels are not documents to which we can certainly learn something about Jesus are subjective, they have written to the Christians. " In his speech because it meant that those documents were written by Christians could not serve to know the historical truth and objective of Christian origins. I replied: "So, in your opinion the most appropriate attitude in the face of reality is suspect?". "Sure," he said. And other companions joined him. Then I said: "If the most appropriate attitude in the face the reality is the suspicion this morning when your mom put you in the coffee table for breakfast, you said, Mom, if first you do not chemically analyzed, and I can prove that it is not the poisoned drink. " Well recall the words of my students and among the angry and surprised at my provocation, raised his arms, saying: "But if it's for sixteen years I've lived with my mother." "Then," I objected, "there are times when the attitude towards reality is not the suspect, right?". The boy was a bit 'embarrassed. And I continued: "Well, what is the difference between the attitude you have in front of the Gospels (as you reacted to the word that I wrote on the blackboard Gospels) and the attitude you have in front of the cup of coffee? What do you start from the Gospels without having sixteen years of living behind while in front of the cup of coffee you get sixteen years with loads of reasons, which give you the assurance that your mother did not put poison in his coffee. " This episode, which I then told many times, made me realize that the only reasonable position in front of the New Testament documents, the Gospels, is the one that taught us the Church, which comes near to them as my student the cup of coffee through an experience of cohabitation in the present with the Christian event. Who has the experience, like the boy with his mother, when they approach the Gospels, not in a position naive - is that my student was an innocent in front of the cup of coffee, she was sixteen full of reasons to approach the cup of coffee without any fear, so he could have said, in analogy with Peter: "If I do not think my mom, I can not believe what my eyes see" - but in a place full of reasons, accumulated during a cohabitation over time. Nothing but an illusion! Who has the experience, approaches to the Gospels and finds that correlation increases with the coexistence in time.. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment