“Many people perceive Christianity as something institutional — rather than as an encounter with Christ — which explains why they don’t see it as a source of joy (…) Today, Christianity is seen as an old tradition, weighed down by old Commandments, something we already know which tells us nothing new; a strong institution, one of the great institutions that weigh on our shoulders. If we stay with this impression, we do not live the essence of Christianity, which is an ever new encounter, an event thanks to which we can encounter the God who speaks to us, who approaches us, who befriends us”

(scroll down for answer)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

(future Pope Benedict XVI)

as quoted by Zenit, May 7th, 2004

74 Shares

12 Responses

  1. Avatar Peter Aiello says:

    Christianity is an encounter with Christ; but there are many ways that people attempt to have this encounter; and they all don’t produce the same amount of joy. It’s a very valid sentiment; but the problem is that there is much disagreement as to how it is done. The divisions in Christianity are the result.

    • Avatar jong says:

      Peter Aiello
      Because True Christianity demand trust & obedience to the Vicar of Christ whom Jesus had entrusted His Founded Church to take care of His flock. Peter was entrusted the Keys to man’s salvation.
      Sad to say, the fallen nature of humanity are inclined to imitate the original sin of Lucifer, How?
      Lucifer was bestowed with a superb intellect.As a cherub he knows the Secrets of God and entrusted to bear the Light of God, but pride puff-up as he loves himself too much receiving the praises of the angels when he received an extra gift in the form of anointing to guard the Throne of God. (Ezekiel28-ff).And when God presented His Divine Plan for the Logos, Lucifer could not comprehend it because it is the “hidden wisdom” of God. Instead of trusting & obeying God’s Plan, Lucifer bearing “pride” in his will, expressed his confusions arrogantly thru disobedience and uttered the famous word “Non Serviam”. This is now the embraced motto of all Rad Trads and some of Dissenters, the “Non Serviam” becomes “Recognized and Resist”.
      If we embraced our pride that we can understand the bible alone, apart from the Church then we are imitating Lucifer’s pride and definitely we will encounter confusions along the way and since we dont want to assent to the Wisdom of the Church, we will also expressed it arrogantly thru disobedience.
      Peter Aiello, one simple question, the Wisdom of God is seated at the Throne of God in the Holy Mountain which he happened to guard.
      Lucifer was “anointed” to guard the Holy Mountain and can pass the fiery stones the position of Seraphim, when Lucifer saw the Spirit of Wisdom seated at the Throne, Lucifer thought, or perhaps lust that God will give it to him also as the greatest gift of anointing to become the Leader of the Heavenly Host.
      The problem is, the “Spirit of Wisdom” was not given to Lucifer., it was not meant for him but destined to be given to a Sovereign Queen.
      Do you know who received the “Spirit of Wisdom” that Lucifer saw at the Holy Mountain?
      Clue, the one who received the Spirit of Wisdom reveals the mystery to St.Bernadette…do you got it?

      • Avatar Peter Aiello says:

        When Christ told Peter to feed his sheep, I don’t see where Christ spoke of authority in the same way that you think of it. Peter says to the elders: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1Peter 5:3).
        The wisdom of the Church is found in the Bible, which is the basis for all future Catholic teaching. It’s the reliable place to start researching the wisdom of the Church. As we use it and apply it to our personal lives, we grow in our understanding of it.
        “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1Corinthian 1:24).
        Are you called?

      • Avatar jong says:

        Peter Aiello
        It understandable if you cannot see the authority of Peter clearly written in the bible that were continuously embraced by billion Catholics for 2000 years and most especially the Saints & Martyrs value obedience to the Pope like the famous St.Padre Pio of our times.. Blindness is also wriiten in the bible because of pride & disobedience, and it was the very same fault of the Pharisees because they thought they are wise in their own eyes. Proverbs18:2

      • Avatar Peter Aiello says:

        I guess that even Paul didn’t recognize Peter’s unlimited authority when he withstood him to the face. Are there no limits? Can you define them if there are?

    • Avatar jong says:

      Peter Aiello
      St. Thomas Aquinas said, “for those who have faith no explanation is needed but for those who have not, no explanation would suffice.”

      Your statement and the favorite confusions of all Pope Francis dissenters;
      “I guess that even Paul didn’t recognize Peter’s unlimited authority when he withstood him to the face. Are there no limits?”

      This is where wisdom & discernment plays a key role in understanding what happened in Galatians2:11-13, St.Peter is clearly the Supreme Authority as St.Paul seek Peter’s approval on the teaching regarding fellowship of the Jews among the Gentile converts. St.Peter clearly upheld the teachings as scriptures stated he was seen eating with the Gentiles, but the narration is not complete. Since some Jews particularly the disciple of James who arrived at the scene do not yet embraced this inspired teachings and so Peter as the Head of the Church had attempted to leave the table knowing the gentiles will understand. But, Barnabas followed on his own discretion and this created a bad scenario. At that moment, St.Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to used the scenario to proclaim the Council of Jerusalem teachings and to openly correct Peter’s behavior with a good intention to remind all the Jews who were still uneasy on having fellowship with converted Gentiles. St.Peter upheld the teaching and does not teach any errors or heresy in this passages, but the author of Acts, St.Luke perhaps also does not known fully what’s going on with the mind & heart of St.Peter why he suddenly stood & stop eating with the Gentiles, perhaps to approach the disciple of James who are having a hard time embracing this inspired teaching coming from St.Paul to pacify them, but clearly St.Peter had upheld the teachings and being the Head also has the responsibility to explain his behavior with the Jews.

      Your other questions, “Are there no limits? Can you define them if there are?”
      Well, Vatican I in 1870 defined the Dogmatic limits of Peter’s Authority.
      Peter Aielllo, do not fool yourself….you are not a Catholic..you are a Protestant..you are trying to fool yourself telling this site that you are a Catholic but all your posted comments are born out of protest & dissent to the Authority of the Pope.
      Sorry, Jesus only gave Peter the Keys to His Kingdom and St.Paul clearly recognized and upheld that Authority. Council of Jerusalem is a testament to Peter’s Authority as the Supreme Pontiff, as St.Paul knew that he alone cannot bind & loose any inspired teaching apart from the Vicar of Christ.

      One more thing to all Dissenters who loved to quote this passages and had an illusioned that they can correct the Pope openly, ask yourself a simple question “Is the level of my spiritual maturity, wisdom & holiness are in the level of St.Paul? Remember St.Paul was docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit and acted by the power of the Holy Spirit to openly correctSt. Peter’s behavior. St.Paul “convicted” Peter of his wrong behavior and do not merely “accuse without proof” like the Rad Trads. The Holy Spirit “convict” and not “accuse”. Who is the accuser in the bible? So, now you know that all the Rad Trads who are accusing Pope Francis was not inspired by the Holy Spirit but Satan himself the Great Accuser. (Revelation12:10)

  2. Avatar Manuel Dauvin says:

    I think the practical directive in the quote is clear. ..we must understand that the church is radically more than an institution which delivers judgements, rubrics and laws. Cardinal R was not presuming to give the comprehensive solution to the divisions present but to highlight one cause of the division …the burdensome mindset of institutional thinking.
    As for why Pedro chose this quote given the context of this site’s mission? I imagine it is because it places the thoughts of francis on the clericalism within the church in the company of another vicar who held similar views and yet won the admiration of the francis bashers.

    • Avatar Manuel Dauvin says:

      I used Pedro instead of mr.Gabriel. apologies. I view all writers on this site as dear friends in their love for the papacy. Easy to get familiar.

    • Avatar Lazurus says:

      Now here’s the thing. Some tradionalists even criticised JP2 and Pope Benedict. This whole thing was even before Pope Francis. The reason it seems to me why they have a high opinion of someone is because they agree with them. If Cardinal Sarah were to rebuke they would find some other Churchman who agrees with them. Even if a pope disagrees then the pope if the modernist.

      It’s the tail wagging the dog.

  3. Avatar Manuel Dauvin says:

    I used Pedro instead of mr.Gabriel. apologies. I view all writers on this site as dear friends in their love for the papacy. Easy to get familiar.

  4. Avatar Christopher Lake says:

    Peter Aiello,

    The example that you use above, of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter, does not support your disagreements with what you call “today’s Catholic Church” or “today’s Catholicism.”

    If you go back to that part of Scripture and read it in context, Paul rebuked Peter, because Peter, in that *one particular situation* in Scripture, was falling back into living according to older Jewish customs. These were customs that the apostles had already decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were no longer necessary for believers in Christ. They didn’t make this decision based on the kind of “Sola Scriptura by the laity” practice which you personally seem to favor. They made the decision by the Holy Spirit’s guidance and *through their authority to teach as apostles*.

    St. Peter, ironically, in this instance, was not *personally living out the current teaching of the Church* on one particular issue. Paul’s rebuke to Peter was actually a *defense* of the Church’s authority to teach, and to set certain doctrinal and practical boundaries, in terms of how those in the Church believed and lived out their faith. Paul’s rebuke to Peter is not a negation of Papal authority at all. It is a recognition of that authority. Peter just wasn’t personally living out the Church’s own authoritative teaching in one area, so Paul rebuked him for it.

    St. Paul categorically did *not* say that each and every lay Christian, armed with his or her own sopy of rhe Scriptures, has the ability and the authority to say, definitively, when the Church’s teaching authority is, or is not, hindering the understanding of the message that you, Peter Aiello, believe Christ (and His Church) came to give. St. Paul actually *rebuked* your notion by appealing to the Church’s authoritative ruling, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that St. Peter was *momentarily failing to live out* in one situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *