{"id":1703,"date":"2020-01-01T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-01T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1703"},"modified":"2019-12-23T14:51:15","modified_gmt":"2019-12-23T13:51:15","slug":"vf171","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/fr\/2020\/01\/vf171\/","title":{"rendered":"171. The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI: Looking for a Deeper Protestant Evaluation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) is one of the towering figures in twentieth-century Roman Catholic theology. Born in 1927, his impressive biography includes having been a theological expert at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), holding various professorships in Munich, Bonn, M\u00fcnster, and Regensburg (1957-1977), being Archbishop of Munich (1977-1981) and Cardinal, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981-2005), to eventually becoming Pope (2005-2013), and since 2013, Pope Emeritus. His Opera Omnia<\/em><\/a> consists of 16 volumes and covers virtually all aspects of theology and church life with scholarly depth. Needless to say, one cannot think about seriously dealing with present-day Roman Catholicism without coming to terms with his work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

His stature makes his reputation spillover from the Roman Catholic world. So a book on The Theology of Benedict XVI: A Protestant Appreciation<\/em><\/a>, ed. T. Perry (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), is no surprise and is a welcome contribution to approaching the work of Joseph Ratzinger from the outside. The volume contains 15 articles written by Protestant authors who cover various aspects of his work, especially in the areas of dogmatic and liturgical theology, offering an entry point into his theological vision. The overall tone of the articles is generally informative and understandably appreciative, as the subtitle indicates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Tim Perry, the editor of the book, is not new to initiatives aimed at building an ecumenical bridge between Evangelicals and Catholics. One can think of his editorship of The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment<\/em><\/a> (2007), in which Pope Wojty\u0142a was assessed in extremely generous terms\u2013 so generous that the analysis seemed to be selective and forgetful of major critical points of his legacy (e.g. see my review asking questions about John Paul II\u2019s alleged but idiosyncratic \u201cChrist-centered legacy<\/a>\u201d). Other volumes by Perry (e.g. Mary for Evangelicals<\/em><\/a>, 2006, and with D. Kendall, The Blessed Virgin Mary<\/em><\/a>, 2013) also show his desire to wet the evangelical appetite for Roman Catholic doctrine and spiritualit\u00e0 (e.g. Mariology) while not always indicating what is biblically at stake in them. His chapter on Mary in the book (pp. 118-135) confirms his desire to find ways to \u201credeem\u201d the Catholic Marian dogmas and practices for evangelical readers, even when they should be simply rejected from a biblical standpoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his introduction, Perry looks at the (ecumenical?) future and singles out four ways in which Ratzinger\u2019s theological wisdom can be useful for tomorrow\u2019s church. Learning from Benedict, the church will: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. find her strength in holy Scripture;
2. affirm that Christian faith is reasonable;
3. depend much more on the visible holiness of her members; and
4. be humble (pp. 7-9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are all\nimportant points. However, on either side of the Tiber (Protestant or Roman\nCatholic), who can be against them? They are so generic that even along the liberal-conservative\ndividing line within various Christian groups, who could say anything contrary?\nThe problem is: does this list fairly and accurately represent, if not the whole<\/em>, at least the heart<\/em> of Ratzinger\u2019s theology? Would Benedict himself summarize his\nwork in these points? Are we sure that his message to the churches can be separated\nfrom the sacramental, hierarchical, and institutional nature of the Roman gospel\nand Rome\u2019s \u201cthick\u201d claims on ecclesiology, soteriology, the papacy, Mariology, etc.?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The intention of \u201cappreciating\u201d Ratzinger\u2019s theology is evident, but what about the ability to penetrate<\/em> it? The impression of a similar gap is confirmed in other chapters of the book. For example, Ben Meyers and Katherine Sonderegger helpfully discuss the relationship between faith and reason in Ratzinger (11-25 and 28-45). The rationality of faith is certainly a theme dear to him, but as clearly demonstrated in his famous 2006 Regensburg Lecture \u201cFaith, Reason and the University\u201d<\/a>, Benedict builds this rationality on the \u201csynthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit\u201d and firmly rejects what he identifies as the \u201cprogramme of dehellenization\u201d of the faith. According to him, this programme took place on the 16th century \u201cScripture Alone\u201d Protestant principle, continued through 19th and 20th century theological liberalism, and eventually resulted in present-day relativistic multi-culturalism. One would have thought that in a book that presents a \u201cProtestant\u201d voice, someone would take issue with Benedict for his totally negative assessment of Sola Scriptura<\/em>, one of the pillars of classic Protestantism, which he considers to hold the main responsibility for the wreckage of the Christian faith. Instead, the overall \u201cappreciation\u201d for Ratzinger\u2019s defense of the rationality of faith over and against the \u201cScripture Alone\u201d principle takes precedence over a truly Protestant analysis, thus skipping the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue (which involves biblical critique done in a gracious yet firm way).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another example of\nthis weakness of the book has to do with Ratzinger\u2019s Trinitarian theology. In\nhis chapter on the topic, Fred Sanders commends his \u201cpowerful set of\nTrinitarian commitments\u201d (p. 136), a common theological foundation that is\noften praised in the book as something that Ratzinger shares with Protestants.\nBecause of his Trinitarianism, Ratzinger is presented as an ecumenical\ntheologian from whom Protestants must learn. Staying on the surface of Trinitarian\ntheology, this might be true, but as soon as one begins to dig deeper, things significantly\nchange. In presenting his liturgical vision, Peter Leithart quotes Ratzinger\ntalking about the Eucharist: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Eucharistic Prayer is as entering into the prayer of Jesus Christ\nhimself, hence it is the Church\u2019s entering into the Logos, the Father\u2019s Word<\/em>\u201d\n(p. 197). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Church enters into\nthe Logos! This is a view of the Eucharist that is heavily embedded in a Trinitarian\nframework and implies that there is an organic \u201cChrist-Church interconnection\u201d\n(an expression used by Gregg Allison, p. 63), which is biblically disputable. Ratzinger\u2019s\nTrinitarian theology demands that the Church enters into the Logos, thus\nbecoming one with Him and claiming to prolong (so to speak) His incarnation in\nher teaching and her sacramental and ruling offices. This view is based on a Trinitarian\nargument, but runs contrary to the standard Protestant view of the Church and\nher relationship with Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or again, in\nskillfully dealing with Ratzinger\u2019s theology of the Word of God, Kevin\nVanhoozer quotes Benedict saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs the Word of God becomes flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit in the\nwomb of the Virgin Mary, so Sacred Scripture is born from the womb of the\nChurch by the power of the Holy Spirit<\/em>\u201d (p. 69). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theology of\nScripture is set in the context of Trinitarian theology, and the Church is\nembedded in this Trinitarian dynamic as if she were the mother of the Word\nbecause the presence of the Spirit is intrinsically tied to her. The link\nbetween the Holy Spirit and the Church is so organic that \u201cfor Benedict, Scripture,\ntradition, and the Roman magisterium always coincide because they are guided by\nthe same Spirit\u201d (p. 85). His Trinitarian theology leads Ratzinger to \u201cdismissing\u201d\n(p. 68) and \u201cexplicitly\u201d denying Sola\nScriptura<\/em> (p. 75), which is one of the tenets of the evangelical\nunderstanding of the gospel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is: if\nCatholics and Protestants have the same Trinitarian foundation (as many\nchapters of the book assume), how is it that they come to very different\naccounts of Revelation, the Bible, the Church, the sacraments, salvation, \u2026 the\ngospel? If we have this foundational commonality, why does Ratzinger argue in\n(his) Trinitarian terms that \u201cScripture Alone\u201d is \u2013 for example \u2013 the main\ncause of the departure from the rationality of faith (e.g. in the above\nmentioned Regensburg Lecture) and is to be rejected in order to embrace a proper\nview of the Eucharist and Revelation? Are we not dealing with gospel<\/em> issues that stem from different <\/em>Trinitarian views, which look\nsimilar in language and on the surface but are undergirded by different core\ncommitments and result in ultimately different accounts of the gospel?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cappreciative\u201d\ntone of the book shies away from asking the question, let alone responding to\nit, with exceptions and with some interesting hints. The chapters by Allison\nand Vanhoozer point to the idea that something deeper than acknowledging\ngeneric commonalities runs in the Roman Catholic and Protestant theological\nbasic orientations. As Carl Trueman rightly observes in his chapter \u201cIs the Pope\n(Roman Catholic)?\u201d, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRoman Catholicism is not simply Protestantism with a different set of\ndoctrines. It is a different way of thinking about Christianity, a way that\ndraws a very tight connection between Scripture, tradition, and the doctrine of\nthe church in a manner alien to Protestantism<\/em>\u201d (p. 153).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA different way of\nthinking\u201d. Finally, someone in the book indicates what is at stake in dealing\nwith Roman Catholicism in general and with Ratzinger in particular. \u201cA\ndifferent way of thinking\u201d that has some overlap in the use of biblical and\ntheological language but is constructed with a different blueprint and results in\na different answer to the ultimate questions about God, the world, and eternity.\n\u201cA different way of thinking\u201d. This is a clue that helps us to appreciate\nBenedict\u2019s theology much more than lazily praising what we Protestants have in\ncommon with it. I think Ratzinger would agree more with this \u201cdifferent way of\nthinking\u201d type of appraisal than with words of praise that do not go deep\nenough in the analysis of his theology. Trueman quotes him saying: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe way one views the structure of Christianity will necessarily affect\nin some measure, great or small, one\u2019s attitude to various particular matters\ncontained within the whole<\/em>\u201d (n. 26, p. 163). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The book The Theology of Benedict XVI: A Protestant Appreciation<\/em><\/a> contains several \u201cparticulars\u201d of Ratzinger\u2019s\ntheology from a Protestant viewpoint, but the \u201cstructure\u201d of his view of\nChristianity is only touched upon by few of them and is left as a homework that\nis still to be done. The \u201cappreciation\u201d of the book should be heard, but not at\nthe expense of neglecting the fact that Benedict and Protestants have different\nviews of the \u201cstructure of Christianity\u201d that impact the whole of their\nrespective faiths. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

P.S. On Ratzinger\u2019s\ntheology I have also written an \u201cappreciative\u201d (I hope) yet evangelically\ncritical article: Progressive, Conservative or Roman Catholic? On the Theology of Joseph\nRatzinger in Evangelical Perspective<\/em><\/a>, \u201cPerichoresis\u201d\n6.2 (2008) pp. 201-218.<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>