occasion that the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, stripped of his authority as Supreme Pontiff (though not his title of Pope ) has published the second part of Jesus of Nazareth , it seemed good to me also (at his side from a plane intellectually negligible) glossing some of his ideas on the Resurrection since this is the time, and is the core of Christian faith (as in general it was already many Jews of the Master, cf. Lk 20, 27-39).
This new installment ("from the Entry into Jerusalem to the Resurrection") [Ediciones Encuentro ] I think also, as the first, superfluous in the theological order, since much of Joseph Ratzinger what we now repeat I have said, even in detail, in his Introduction to Christianity . Lectures on the Apostles' Creed taught in Tübingen in 1967. So I will now refer to section II.2.4 of these lessons ("risen from the dead").
Cuando digo que Ratzinger explica la Resurrección , no quiero decir que describa cómo pudo ser ese supuesto hecho (esto quedará inmediatamente aclarado en las propias palabras del teólogo), sino en el sentido con que el diccionario define explicar : "declarar o exponer cualquier materia, doctrina o texto difícil, con palabras muy claras para hacerlos más perceptibles". En este sentido léxico, Ratzinger ha explicado muy bien, a mi juicio, qué es la Resurrección de Jesús, el objeto de nuestra fe.
La Resurrección del Señor es motivo de escándalo, first of all, as many imagine it as Jesus died and was buried he had risen from the grave [ resurgens ]. It is impossible for the popular imagination it could represent another way, since by its very nature is unimaginable resurrection (it can not be represented in a image) , because it has no basis for comparison in order of things known. De ratione est imaginis similitudo (says St. Thomas in S.Th. 1, q.35, a.1), similitudo rei quae est in specie . So maybe we can accept the iconography of Jesus crucified (with all the idealization that the artists have blurred the picture of a horrific executed), but not that of Jesus risen if not more than obedience to popular devotion.
Cuando digo que Ratzinger explica la Resurrección , no quiero decir que describa cómo pudo ser ese supuesto hecho (esto quedará inmediatamente aclarado en las propias palabras del teólogo), sino en el sentido con que el diccionario define explicar : "declarar o exponer cualquier materia, doctrina o texto difícil, con palabras muy claras para hacerlos más perceptibles". En este sentido léxico, Ratzinger ha explicado muy bien, a mi juicio, qué es la Resurrección de Jesús, el objeto de nuestra fe.
La Resurrección del Señor es motivo de escándalo, first of all, as many imagine it as Jesus died and was buried he had risen from the grave [ resurgens ]. It is impossible for the popular imagination it could represent another way, since by its very nature is unimaginable resurrection (it can not be represented in a image) , because it has no basis for comparison in order of things known. De ratione est imaginis similitudo (says St. Thomas in S.Th. 1, q.35, a.1), similitudo rei quae est in specie . So maybe we can accept the iconography of Jesus crucified (with all the idealization that the artists have blurred the picture of a horrific executed), but not that of Jesus risen if not more than obedience to popular devotion.
The Sadducees of Jesus' day, refute the resurrection saying paradoxes such as the case of marriage referred contrayese woman with seven children. The answer I gave the Master (Lk 20, 36) could not be more elegant: those who are worthy of future life and resurrection, are like angels . That is like saying that a resurrected not be like a man or a woman (we can represent the human figure).
Ratzinger explains that "the life of the Risen is not bios, ie bio-logical form of our mortal life in history, but zoe, new life, different and ultimately a life that has passed the deadly field of the history of changes by a greater power. The New Testament of the resurrection stories clearly insist that the life of the Risen and does not fit into the history of changes , but outside and on it. "Motivated by this understanding of the Gospels, he proposed a" true "hermeneutics" of the resurrection accounts tough ", based on the idea that the ultimate life escapes chemical and biological laws . This understanding is very consistent with the Master's teachings on the afterlife.
On the resurrection can not say more than is not a return to life as we know (which Ratzinger called bios ) but admission to a different life ( zoe), we can not bear, because it is not the end of similarity . This modern understanding of the resurrection of dissimilarity , causing surprise in the study of the questions posed by Thomas at S.Th. III, like that (q.54 a.4) whether Christ was resurrected with injuries [ conveniens fuit corpus animam Christi cum in resurrection cicatricibus resumere ], under the principle that the body was raised in Christ [ quidquid ad pertinet humani corporis naturam, in corpore Christi fuit totum resurgentis ].
Today, using the approach of Ratzinger, would say that Thomas confused bios and zoe , because he lacked scientific paradigm that would have led to restriction of biology that dies and dies, the flesh and blood [et sanguis expensive ], and can not raise (because the resurrection is not a return ).
Today, using the approach of Ratzinger, would say that Thomas confused bios and zoe , because he lacked scientific paradigm that would have led to restriction of biology that dies and dies, the flesh and blood [et sanguis expensive ], and can not raise (because the resurrection is not a return ).
But as Ratzinger said in his lecture, this is only "half of things and stay here would distort the message of the New Testament." In principle, holds that meet the Risen Christ is an experience that has nothing to do with the encounter with another person in our history . But also, that the Gospel accounts show a major event , because "faith is not born in the hearts of the disciples, but they came out and strengthened against doubts and convinced them that Jesus had truly risen." The Risen Christ "has entered the Kingdom of God and is so powerful it can be visible men." Not find in the text of Ratzinger any suggestion about the nature of this visibility, more is not itself a physical body, and just means (as I understand it) a real correlate of belief of the disciples . Only in this way means that the disciples were convinced of their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Because they believed real and not imagined (and that has nothing to do with visibility physical-optics).
This new understanding of reality (not physicality) of the resurrection of Jesus, will allow us to better understand the conclusion of the Jewish scholar Paul Winter in the 1961 classic process Jesus (cited by Geza Vermes), "sentencing, took him away. Crucified, dead and buried, rose again, despite everything, in the hearts of the disciples who loved him and felt him near. Court the world, condemned by the authority, buried by the churches that proclaim your name, risen again today and tomorrow, in the hearts of men who love and feel close to him. "With Ratzinger say that the resurrection, in real terms can not be reduced to a mere warm feeling, but in history can only be made visible and, in the hearts of believers .
conclude with a reflection on the service can now provide new book on Jesus, the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. The faith that will not die at all, can not be based only on the earthly life of Galileo (the "historical Jesus") because the facts do not we try to hope (as the campaigns of Julius Caesar in Gaul can not touch us intimately, root). But the popular versions of Jesus appeared to his disciples , also contribute to explain away our faith with our knowledge of nature. A "Jesus of faith" maximally away from physics and biological consistency will never be understood by those who do not believe, leading, in reaction, to remove people from a message that would be popular, the good news , which then becomes surreptitiously text-sectarian and occultist. Actual receipt of the gospel requires a balance among the founding events (the story of Jesus on earth), and the object of faith (the resurrection), performed according to our paradigms. As for the resurrection of Jesus, I feel it necessary not to confuse an event made visible in the hearts of the disciples with a physical event (do not confuse bios and zoe under the terms of Ratzinger).
[Interesting: José Manuel Mora Fandos, "How to paint a glorious body" ( link).]
[Interesting: José Manuel Mora Fandos, "How to paint a glorious body" ( link).]
.
