Fr. Joseph Ratzinger defends the false theory of the 'anonymous Christian' by Karl Rahner

More shrill distortion and propaganda from TIA.

But then again, what else is new?

Ok so can you enlighten to us what Cardinal Ratzinger was really trying to say here?

Yes, please help us out, MRyan. Elisa too. How can what is written by the then Fr. Ratzinger be squared with anything from the last 2000 years of Catholic Tradition?

Show us how it is taken out of context.

Re: MRyan calling TIA shrill propagandists-- TIA supports baptism of desire/baptism of blood. Boy, some people are never satisfied!

I think I would put this forward as evidence for those who say Pope Benedict was once liberal in his younger days and has grown more conservative since then. It's been forty years, and he's come a LONG way since then.

RashaLampa wrote:Ok so can you enlighten to us what Cardinal Ratzinger was really trying to say here?

And this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the other thread about the agenda of Tradition In Action, which you appear to have bought into hook, line and sinker. Your attitude is one of “See, the allegation appears to be true, and if you don’t think its true than the burden is on you to tell us what he was really saying”, as if the words themselves actually convict him. So we begin with an assumption of “guilt”, and it is up to me to prove why the assumption is not only rash, it is totally without basis.

Fine; let’s look at one of the “smoking gun” passages:

This is equivalent to those basic Christian dispositions that the New Covenant calls 'pistis' [faith] and 'agape [love].' It is the presence of these dispositions that distinguishes the 'anonymous Christians' (Rahner) from the pagans, while the absence of these dispositions characterizes hidden pagans from many Christians. One who has these dispositions has the 'essence of Christianity' and saves himself."

So where in this text does Father Ratzinger “defend the false theory” of the 'anonymous Christian' by Karl Rahner? Where, in other words, does Father Ratzinger suggest that the dispositions of faith and love (the very 'essence of Christianity') are not the dispositions required for justification, or, that these same dispositions are not a “preparation for the Gospel”?

Nowhere does Fr. Ratzinger state or even suggest that the pagan can be saved where he is without the divine light of supernatural faith and without charity.

Furthermore, when he said “One who has these dispositions [of faith and charity] has the 'essence of Christianity' and saves himself”, he is not suggesting that someone who possesses these necessary dispositions can merit salvation on his own; he says this only in the context of Trent, where in Sess. 6, Ch. 5 (On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds) it declares:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

If Fr. Ratzinger was trying to put a positive “Catholic” spin on Rahner’s “theory” - so what? But let no man say that Fr. Ratzinger “defended” the “false” theory of Rahner’s without proof. This is not “proof”, it is circumstantial evidence that does not stand up to the light of truth, and it reflects an agenda to destroy the credibility of Pope Benedict XVI by shedding so called “light” on his writings as priest and then Cardinal Ratzinger.

I am not saying that much of what Fr. Ratzinger wrote is not troubling, or even seemingly heterodox; but it is quite another thing to accuse him of a “false” belief in the salvation dogma by this type of this out-of-context and circumstantial “evidence” which is nothing less than a hatchet job.

One just assumes Fr. Ratzinger was a liberal modernist (and still is), and here’s the “proof” - it proves nothing except the bias and agenda of the one presenting the false “evidence”.

hsilver wrote:Re: MRyan calling Tradition In Action shrill propagandists-- Tradition In Action supports baptism of desire/baptism of blood. Boy, some people are never satisfied!

So "supporting" baptism of desire and baptism of blood is proof of what, exactly?

Luther defended the law of baptism and devotion to our Blessed Mother.

So what.