What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction To Christianity
Revised EditionOne of Cardinal Ratzinger's most important and widely read books, this volume is a revised second edition with an improved translation and an in-depth 20 page preface by the Cardinal. As he states in the preface, since this book was first published over 30 years ago, many changes and significant events have occurred in the world, and in the Church. But even so, he says he is firmly convinced that his fundamental approach in this book is still very timely and crucial for the spiritual needs of modern man. That approach puts the question of God and the question about Christ in the very center, which leads to a "narrative Christology" and demonstrates that the place for faith is in the Church.Thus, this remarkable elucidation of the Apostle's Creed gives an excellent, modern interpretation of the foundations of Christianity. Ratzinger's profound treatment of Christianity's basic truths combines a spiritual outlook with a deep knowledge of Scripture and the history of theology.
340 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1968
556 people are currently reading
3194 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
December 14, 2012
A Catholic book-a-licious selection for my birthday, thanks to my husband who knows who my favorite authors are. I'd no sooner ripped the wrapping off before I was flipping through the introduction and saying, "Oh, even back then he had the same style for considering arguments ... just listen" and then reading aloud. (Yes, he is a patient and loving man, my husband.)
Pope Benedict. On the creed. It doesn't get much better than that.
And he dedicated it to his students in several towns, including Tubingen. Which I've been to. And have fond memories of. From even before Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was on my radar.
So I guess it can get better. It just did.
================
UPDATE
A slow read because every sentence is packed with goodness. But the profundity of that goodness is amazing. I've had several people say they'd never recommend this book to atheists because it is complex. I don't know. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) captures the essence of the faith so very well and never lets us forget that our belief is personal because we know Jesus in person ... it might at least help atheists see why we care and why we continually recommend our faith to others. We want to share that friendship which is so vital to us.
================
2ND UPDATE
Pope Benedict makes me laugh when he begins reviewing what the modern take on the "historical Jesus" has become. As he spent two pages following the "logical" conclusions that one hears (and they are still accurate for today's world some 40 years after he wrote), I began to laugh. I hear people mouthing these beliefs everyday but had never stopped to think how absurd the trail of logic was that led to them. His comment:
Pope Benedict. On the creed. It doesn't get much better than that.
And he dedicated it to his students in several towns, including Tubingen. Which I've been to. And have fond memories of. From even before Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was on my radar.
So I guess it can get better. It just did.
================
UPDATE
A slow read because every sentence is packed with goodness. But the profundity of that goodness is amazing. I've had several people say they'd never recommend this book to atheists because it is complex. I don't know. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) captures the essence of the faith so very well and never lets us forget that our belief is personal because we know Jesus in person ... it might at least help atheists see why we care and why we continually recommend our faith to others. We want to share that friendship which is so vital to us.
================
2ND UPDATE
Pope Benedict makes me laugh when he begins reviewing what the modern take on the "historical Jesus" has become. As he spent two pages following the "logical" conclusions that one hears (and they are still accurate for today's world some 40 years after he wrote), I began to laugh. I hear people mouthing these beliefs everyday but had never stopped to think how absurd the trail of logic was that led to them. His comment:
To anyone accustomed to think historically, the whole theory is absurd, even if today hordes of people believe it' for my part I must confess that, quite apart from the Christian faith and simply from my acquaintance with history, I find it preferable and easier to believe that God became man than that such a conglomeration of hypotheses represents the truth. ...He then begins looking at the claim of Christological dogma, for which I am truly thankful.
December 23, 2024
No se puede hacer una reseña de un libro como este, pero la lucidez y conocimientos de Ratzinger para explicar la doctrina básica y a la vez profunda de la Iglesia Católica es loable. No se detiene en rodeos ni trampas del lenguaje filosófico-teológico; va a lo concreto. Y esto lo hace a través de diseccionar una por una las frases del Credo de los Apóstoles y lo que significan dentro de la Historia de la Salvación. Hay muchas especificidades doctrinales que pueden resultarles ajenas a cualquier católico, porque la explicación teológica de Ratzinger va mucho más allá del Cristo histórico y el Cristo mÃtico. Interesante e importante la distinción que hace entre Cristo y Jesús (que tomó relevancia en las nociones modernas del Cristianismo), la eliminación de la reducción que hace cada uno de esos nombres a la figura de Cristo, y la conclusión del por qué es tan crucial lo de "verdadero Dios y verdadero hombre". También es absolutamente rompedora la interpretación de lo escatológico de dentro de la doctrina cristiana católica (lo que hay después de la muerte) y el tema de la inmortalidad y la resurrección. Y dentro de estas ideas de avanzada, también destaco el cómo aborda el significado del infierno (y el descenso de Cristo al infierno): es el abandono total, la soledad absoluta (la que Cristo experimentó en la cruz cuando gritó: "¡Padre, por qué me has abandonado!"). Este serÃa su descenso al infierno. Y, finalmente, lo sustancial: el por qué la figura de Cristo, que no es mitad Dios y mitad hombre sino las dos cosas a la vez, se convirtió en el puente entre lo eterno e infinito y lo finito (el hombre, la materia, la creación). Hay un principio y un fin, la historia de la humanidad no es circular. Y, al fin, la salvación del hombre a traves del Amor, asà con mayúsculas. Y otro punto importante: la acción de bien siempre pensando en el otro, la mayor y mas grande aportación del Cristianismo: la Caridad, también asà con mayúsculas. Quedan muchas cosas fuera, pero me las guardo porque es mejor que lean si están interesados en entender la verdadera doctrina católica (que no tiene nada de las ideas mÃticas más ampliamente difundidas).
July 28, 2023
Questo è forse il libro di teologia cattolica più profondo e onesto che io abbia letto.
Un riassunto molto dettagliato si può trovare qui:
È un libro molto denso. Va letto con calma. Ogni pagina contiene almeno due o tre frasi che potrebbero essere citazioni famose.
In una pagina particolarmente interessante dice che ogni incontro umano, a qualsiasi livello, è destinato a lasciarci insoddisfatti.
Il corollario importante di questo concetto è che tutti noi andiamo in giro nel mondo cercando inconsciamente lo stesso tipo di amore che abbiamo trovato all’inizio della nostra vita in nostra madre (o padre, o entrambi), e ovviamente non lo troviamo mai perché tutti - compresi i nostri genitori che poi quando cresci diventano anche loro “persone normali� - sono pieni zeppi di difetti. E quelli da cui tendiamo ad essere più delusi di tutti, di solito, siamo proprio noi stessi.
Però il problema è che siamo tutti pieni di energia idealizzante. Fa parte di essere uomini. Quindi spostare quell’energia idealizzante, che non si può eliminare, da noi o dagli altri a Dio e Gesù è pura salute mentale e spirituale. È una delle poche soluzioni che funzionano. È tecnologia antica e comprovata.
C’� grandissima saggezza in papa Benedetto.
—â¶Ä”â¶Ä”â¶Ä”â¶Ä�
Partial re-read July 2023
Un riassunto molto dettagliato si può trovare qui:
È un libro molto denso. Va letto con calma. Ogni pagina contiene almeno due o tre frasi che potrebbero essere citazioni famose.
In una pagina particolarmente interessante dice che ogni incontro umano, a qualsiasi livello, è destinato a lasciarci insoddisfatti.
Il corollario importante di questo concetto è che tutti noi andiamo in giro nel mondo cercando inconsciamente lo stesso tipo di amore che abbiamo trovato all’inizio della nostra vita in nostra madre (o padre, o entrambi), e ovviamente non lo troviamo mai perché tutti - compresi i nostri genitori che poi quando cresci diventano anche loro “persone normali� - sono pieni zeppi di difetti. E quelli da cui tendiamo ad essere più delusi di tutti, di solito, siamo proprio noi stessi.
Però il problema è che siamo tutti pieni di energia idealizzante. Fa parte di essere uomini. Quindi spostare quell’energia idealizzante, che non si può eliminare, da noi o dagli altri a Dio e Gesù è pura salute mentale e spirituale. È una delle poche soluzioni che funzionano. È tecnologia antica e comprovata.
C’� grandissima saggezza in papa Benedetto.
—â¶Ä”â¶Ä”â¶Ä”â¶Ä�
Partial re-read July 2023
March 23, 2024
ENGLISH: I have read this book three times now.
This 1968 book by Josef Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, is an important theological interpretation of the Creed of the Apostles. I'll just mention two of the ideas expressed in its last chapter (on the resurrection of the flesh):
1. We are immortal because we are the idea that God has of us. As God's ideas are immortal, so we are.
2. There is no time interval between death and resurrection, when the soul is separate from the body. Rather, after death, we are taken by Christ to a new Earth under a new Heaven with a new body, in a time frame completely different from ours.
ESPAÑOL: He leÃdo tres veces este libro.
Este libro de Josef Ratzinger, después Papa Benedicto XVI, fue escrito en 1968 y es una importante interpretación teológica del Credo de los Apóstoles. Sólo mencionaré dos de las ideas expresadas en el último capÃtulo (sobre la resurrección de la carne):
1. Somos inmortales porque somos la idea que Dios tiene de nosotros. Como las ideas de Dios son inmortales, nosotros también lo somos.
2. No hay intervalo de tiempo entre la muerte y la resurrección, en el que el alma está separada del cuerpo. Más bien, después de la muerte, somos llevados por Cristo a una nueva Tierra bajo un cielo nuevo con un cuerpo nuevo, en un marco temporal completamente diferente al nuestro.
This 1968 book by Josef Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, is an important theological interpretation of the Creed of the Apostles. I'll just mention two of the ideas expressed in its last chapter (on the resurrection of the flesh):
1. We are immortal because we are the idea that God has of us. As God's ideas are immortal, so we are.
2. There is no time interval between death and resurrection, when the soul is separate from the body. Rather, after death, we are taken by Christ to a new Earth under a new Heaven with a new body, in a time frame completely different from ours.
ESPAÑOL: He leÃdo tres veces este libro.
Este libro de Josef Ratzinger, después Papa Benedicto XVI, fue escrito en 1968 y es una importante interpretación teológica del Credo de los Apóstoles. Sólo mencionaré dos de las ideas expresadas en el último capÃtulo (sobre la resurrección de la carne):
1. Somos inmortales porque somos la idea que Dios tiene de nosotros. Como las ideas de Dios son inmortales, nosotros también lo somos.
2. No hay intervalo de tiempo entre la muerte y la resurrección, en el que el alma está separada del cuerpo. Más bien, después de la muerte, somos llevados por Cristo a una nueva Tierra bajo un cielo nuevo con un cuerpo nuevo, en un marco temporal completamente diferente al nuestro.
March 28, 2013
Benedict at his finest. Meaty, intellectual, brilliant, and challenging, but at a level for the layperson. This is a particularly thought-provoking book for those of philosophical bent: Benedict (while he was still called Ratzinger) explores the philosophical underpinnings of belief itself and Christian belief in particular, and the problems of faith in the modern world. One of the first works of a serious Catholic theologian I'd read: I was especially surprised and pleased by the lack of "churchiness" and what evangelicals call "Bible-thumping." This is a work for the thinker who may or may not be a Christian or have any foundation in Christianity at all.
December 31, 2022
This book should be one of the "last stops" someone takes if they are considering leaving Christianity, or one of the "first stops" for those who have left but wish to explore the faith more or gradually return. I would also venture to say it's a very necessary read for atheists (particularly atheists who mainly criticize Christianity from a simple fundamentalist Evangelical understanding) and those who wonder why Christianity is special to begin with.
Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) goes exhaustively through each line of the Apostle's Creed and breaks Christianity down into it's component parts. What I really appreciated here is that he is completely honest about the historical and philosophical forces that influenced Christianity's development. He does not have a Biblicalist Fundamentalist view on the faith at all; and is completely aware of the leaps of faith and limitations of "evidence" that exist for the truth claims of Christianity.
A little understanding of some basic philosophical figures and history is good for understanding this book. He really plays with the Hegelian dialectic here and also engages with Marx, Kierkegaard, the early Greek philosophers, etc. However, one won't be too lost if they aren't aware of these people and concepts.
Highly recommend for both the Christian and non Christian alike.
Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) goes exhaustively through each line of the Apostle's Creed and breaks Christianity down into it's component parts. What I really appreciated here is that he is completely honest about the historical and philosophical forces that influenced Christianity's development. He does not have a Biblicalist Fundamentalist view on the faith at all; and is completely aware of the leaps of faith and limitations of "evidence" that exist for the truth claims of Christianity.
A little understanding of some basic philosophical figures and history is good for understanding this book. He really plays with the Hegelian dialectic here and also engages with Marx, Kierkegaard, the early Greek philosophers, etc. However, one won't be too lost if they aren't aware of these people and concepts.
Highly recommend for both the Christian and non Christian alike.
July 24, 2018
цього року католицькі медіа активно відзначають 50-Ð»Ñ–Ñ‚Ñ‚Ñ Â«humanae vitae» (зокрема про контрацепцію. Ñ– аборти. Ñ– ще трошки різного, але от уÑім дуже важливо про контрацепцію Ñ– аборти). ніхто не пише про 50-Ð»Ñ–Ñ‚Ñ‚Ñ Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ñ–Ð½Ò‘ÐµÑ€Ð¾Ð²Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ «вÑтупу до хриÑтиÑнÑтва» (ну, знаєте, usual stuff: бог, Ñпільнота, ні Ñлова про контрацепцію). це Ñкщо у Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð±ÑƒÐ»Ð¸ Ñумніви щодо того, чим цікавлÑÑ‚ÑŒÑÑ ÐºÐ°Ñ‚Ð¾Ð»Ð¸Ñ†ÑŒÐºÑ– медіа.
а в рацінґера знову напиÑалаÑÑ ÐºÐ½Ð¸Ð¶ÐºÐ° про любов. точніше, не «знову», це одна з ранніх, а по-Ñправжньому відома чи й не перша. Ñ– вона така зворушлива, хоча й безÑовіÑно Ñкладна, але вÑе-таки йдетьÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ філоÑофію ÐºÑ–Ð½Ñ†Ñ ÑˆÑ–ÑтдеÑÑтих років, то, мабуть, могло бути зуболомніше. тобто так, про цю книжку треба уточнювати: «вÑтуп» тут â€� не тому, що це пролегомени Ñ– на пальцÑÑ… (воно ні разу не на пальцÑÑ…), а тому, що тут ідетьÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ апоÑтольÑький Ñимвол віри, Ñкий у перші ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð»Ñ–Ñ‚Ñ‚Ñ Ð±ÑƒÐºÐ²Ð°Ð»ÑŒÐ½Ð¾ був вÑтупом до хриÑтиÑнÑтва, оÑновою катехуменату.
Ñ– тепер, в принципі, зрозуміло, звідки роÑтуть ноги в «deus caritas est»: рацінґер від початку пиÑав про Ñпільнотну любов, про коштовні міжлюдÑькі ÑтоÑунки, хоч би Ñка була його оÑновна тема.
а в рацінґера знову напиÑалаÑÑ ÐºÐ½Ð¸Ð¶ÐºÐ° про любов. точніше, не «знову», це одна з ранніх, а по-Ñправжньому відома чи й не перша. Ñ– вона така зворушлива, хоча й безÑовіÑно Ñкладна, але вÑе-таки йдетьÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ філоÑофію ÐºÑ–Ð½Ñ†Ñ ÑˆÑ–ÑтдеÑÑтих років, то, мабуть, могло бути зуболомніше. тобто так, про цю книжку треба уточнювати: «вÑтуп» тут â€� не тому, що це пролегомени Ñ– на пальцÑÑ… (воно ні разу не на пальцÑÑ…), а тому, що тут ідетьÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ апоÑтольÑький Ñимвол віри, Ñкий у перші ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð»Ñ–Ñ‚Ñ‚Ñ Ð±ÑƒÐºÐ²Ð°Ð»ÑŒÐ½Ð¾ був вÑтупом до хриÑтиÑнÑтва, оÑновою катехуменату.
Ñ– тепер, в принципі, зрозуміло, звідки роÑтуть ноги в «deus caritas est»: рацінґер від початку пиÑав про Ñпільнотну любов, про коштовні міжлюдÑькі ÑтоÑунки, хоч би Ñка була його оÑновна тема.
Read
February 5, 2025this guy is great! wonder if he did anything significant after this book
Read
August 2, 2011Of the many Ratzinger books I have read to this point, this one may well be the best. Any Christian who wants to understand the faith at a deeper level, or any non-Christian interested in what Christians actually believe could not find a better book. It may be especially useful to mature Christians who are questioning central tenets of the faith because the standard presentation lacks credibility and who are unsure where else to turn.
Ratzinger begins with a profound reflection on the meaning of "belief," before going on to offer sparkling elucidations on such commonly misunderstood Christian doctrines as the Virgin Birth, Atonement, the Ascension, the resurrection of the body and more. Relentlessly honest, Ratzinger faces all the difficult questions straight up and leaves the reader both awed and grateful. A masterpiece.
Ratzinger begins with a profound reflection on the meaning of "belief," before going on to offer sparkling elucidations on such commonly misunderstood Christian doctrines as the Virgin Birth, Atonement, the Ascension, the resurrection of the body and more. Relentlessly honest, Ratzinger faces all the difficult questions straight up and leaves the reader both awed and grateful. A masterpiece.
March 1, 2015
Ridiculously deceptive title. It's an explanation of the Christian faith that is anything but "introductory." I'd like to summarize what he said, but it's so complex that I really couldn't tell you what it's about without re-reading the thing. In essence, he goes through the Apostle's Creed and explains what it is the people are doing when they believe and what exactly it is that they're expressing their belief in.
Even though the text was very dense,Pope Benedict gave me many useful insights. For instance, he explained the Trinity as three pure "going outs". This helped me understand it better. He also explained Hell as a kind of loneliness of shutting out God in a bid for self-sufficiency.
I highly recommend it, notwithstanding the difficulty of the text. I will have to re-read it to re-learn everything that I read. It's one of those books you can't just read once. You have to read it again and again to get the most out of it.
Even though the text was very dense,Pope Benedict gave me many useful insights. For instance, he explained the Trinity as three pure "going outs". This helped me understand it better. He also explained Hell as a kind of loneliness of shutting out God in a bid for self-sufficiency.
I highly recommend it, notwithstanding the difficulty of the text. I will have to re-read it to re-learn everything that I read. It's one of those books you can't just read once. You have to read it again and again to get the most out of it.
June 28, 2016
After reading Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI), he may be my favorite systematic theologian. He was Radical Orthodox before Radical Orthodoxy was cool.
Don't be fooled by the title, "Introduction to Christianity." This is a very theologically dense book, but well worth the time and effort. If anything, it was a reintroduction into why I am a Christian, and gifted me new language and variations on the themes of grace, mercy, and love.
Thank you, Holy Father, for your ministry.
Don't be fooled by the title, "Introduction to Christianity." This is a very theologically dense book, but well worth the time and effort. If anything, it was a reintroduction into why I am a Christian, and gifted me new language and variations on the themes of grace, mercy, and love.
Thank you, Holy Father, for your ministry.
February 5, 2025
This guy gets it. This is why Ratzinger is my favorite theologian and shapes my entire worldview. I love how he develops a definition of Christianity and centers it on the Cross and how it demonstrates relationship, receiving love as gift, and humility. Mark my words I will share some of these nuggets about the core of Christianity with my OCIA people.
I used my Pope Benedict bookmark while reading so his book had his face sticking out of the top of the pages. I will now list some of my favorite quotes:
—“What cannot be seen represents true reality, the element that supports and makes possible all the rest of reality�
—“[Christian faith’s] central formula is not ‘I believe in something,� but ‘I believe in you.� It is the encounter with the man Jesus, and in this encounter it experiences the meaning of the world as a person.�
—“What food for thought this provides! But let us forego the pleasure of such speculations and return again to our point…�
—“The highest power is demonstrated as the calm willingness to completely renounce all power; and we are shown that it is powerful, not through force, but only through the freedom of love�
—“zig-zag movement of modern theology�
—â¶Äœn³Ü²úâ€�
—“Christian faith is not based on the atomized individual but comes from the knowledge that there is no such thing as a mere individual, that, on the contrary, man is himself only when he is fitted into the whole�
—“God, in an incredible outpouring of himself, expends not only a universe but his own self in order to lead man, a speck of dust, to salvation�
—“[In the Cross,] it is not pain as such that counts but the breadth of the love that spans existence so completely that it unites the distant and the near, bringing God-forsaken man into relation with God�
I used my Pope Benedict bookmark while reading so his book had his face sticking out of the top of the pages. I will now list some of my favorite quotes:
—“What cannot be seen represents true reality, the element that supports and makes possible all the rest of reality�
—“[Christian faith’s] central formula is not ‘I believe in something,� but ‘I believe in you.� It is the encounter with the man Jesus, and in this encounter it experiences the meaning of the world as a person.�
—“What food for thought this provides! But let us forego the pleasure of such speculations and return again to our point…�
—“The highest power is demonstrated as the calm willingness to completely renounce all power; and we are shown that it is powerful, not through force, but only through the freedom of love�
—“zig-zag movement of modern theology�
—â¶Äœn³Ü²úâ€�
—“Christian faith is not based on the atomized individual but comes from the knowledge that there is no such thing as a mere individual, that, on the contrary, man is himself only when he is fitted into the whole�
—“God, in an incredible outpouring of himself, expends not only a universe but his own self in order to lead man, a speck of dust, to salvation�
—“[In the Cross,] it is not pain as such that counts but the breadth of the love that spans existence so completely that it unites the distant and the near, bringing God-forsaken man into relation with God�
November 9, 2024
I took an unfortunately long break from reading, but this was a delightful way to dive back in. Ratzinger organizes the book as an exploration of the Apostles� Creed, reflecting on each statement made in order to elucidate what he argues are the core tenets of Christian belief. Most interesting were his explorations of what “belief� itself constitutes, how the Trinity is to be understood in the context of paganism and Judaism/Islam, and how justice and mercy interact � “The statement that it is Jesus who judges immediately tinge[s] the judgment with hope.�
Ratzinger’s interpretation of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is wonderful: He rejects the simple view that God is wrathful and *required* the sacrifice of His Son to forgive us our sins; instead, he argues that the Cross is the center of our faith precisely because it represents God’s radical, self-giving love; his identity as love itself � if there is sacrifice it is a secondary fact, and it is only valuable insofar as it involves our giving of ourselves to God. Sacrifice for its own sake is no virtue. In his analogy, to be a Christian is to begin the exodus from living for ourselves to living for God and for others. We are called to go beyond ourselves, and in so doing find our true selves � “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.�
We cannot be saved by our own will, because the logic of salvation repudiates the logic of total self-sufficiency. Left to our own devices, we will surely perish. Left to ourselves, we swear off love. God approaches us, and in order to respond to His call, we must venture beyond the comfort of our narrow skulls and embark on the adventure we were created for. In the words of Thomas Merton, “we are invited to forget ourselves on purpose, cast our awful solemnity to the winds and join in the general dance.�
Ratzinger’s interpretation of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is wonderful: He rejects the simple view that God is wrathful and *required* the sacrifice of His Son to forgive us our sins; instead, he argues that the Cross is the center of our faith precisely because it represents God’s radical, self-giving love; his identity as love itself � if there is sacrifice it is a secondary fact, and it is only valuable insofar as it involves our giving of ourselves to God. Sacrifice for its own sake is no virtue. In his analogy, to be a Christian is to begin the exodus from living for ourselves to living for God and for others. We are called to go beyond ourselves, and in so doing find our true selves � “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.�
We cannot be saved by our own will, because the logic of salvation repudiates the logic of total self-sufficiency. Left to our own devices, we will surely perish. Left to ourselves, we swear off love. God approaches us, and in order to respond to His call, we must venture beyond the comfort of our narrow skulls and embark on the adventure we were created for. In the words of Thomas Merton, “we are invited to forget ourselves on purpose, cast our awful solemnity to the winds and join in the general dance.�
Read
January 11, 2024Knjiga nije idealna za ljude kojima nije blizak filozofski rjeÄnik, meÄ‘utim bogata je istinom, a u isto vrijeme odiÅ¡e poniznošću. PreporuÄam je onima koji žele produbiti svoje znanje o kršćanstvu i Crkvi iz perspektive renomiranog profesora teologije, kasnije pape Benedikta XVI.
February 6, 2020
V istom zmysle povinné ÄÃtanie. Na úvod vÅ¡ak treba povedaÅ¥, že "Úvod do kresÅ¥anstva" podľa mňa nie je úvodom pre každého - neviem si predstaviÅ¥, že by ho ÄÃtala moja babka a to nechcem haniÅ¥ moju babku, ale knihu. Pretože je to naozaj nároÄné ÄÃtanie. Ale je také nároÄné, aká je nároÄná viera. V Ratzingerovom ponÃmanà je viera záležitosÅ¥ou rozumu a myslenia.
"Musia teda jestvovaÅ¥ oba spôsoby myslenia: matematické, ktoré treba priradiÅ¥ k uskutoÄniteľnosti, a rozjÃmavé myslenie, ktoré uvažuje o zmysle...Viera v tom zmysle, ako ju chápe Krédo, nie je nehotovou formou poznania, názorom, ktorý by potom bolo možné pretvoriÅ¥ na poznanie v oblasti uskutoÄniteľného. Ona je skôr bytostne inou formou »å³Ü³¦³ó´Ç±¹²Ôého postoja, ktorá stojà povedľa prvotnej formy ako nieÄo samostatné a vlastné, a nemožno ju od tej druhej formy odvodiÅ¥."
A Äo je teda viera podľa Ratzingera?
"Je to na poznanie neredukovateľná, poznaniu nedostupná forma postoja, ktorý Älovek zaujÃma v celku skutoÄnosti, udelenie zmyslu, bez ktorého by Äloveku vÅ¡etko zostalo bez pevného bodu, ktorý predchádza matematickú a vÅ¡etku ostatnú ÄinnosÅ¥ Äloveka a bez ktorého by napokon túto ÄinnosÅ¥ nemohol vykonávaÅ¥, lebo je toho schopný iba tam, kde je zmysel, ktorý ho nesie.â€�
"KresÅ¥ansky veriÅ¥ znamená chápaÅ¥ naÅ¡u existenciu ako odpoveÄ na Slovo, na Logos, ktorý nesie a držà vÅ¡etky veci. NaÅ¡a odpoveÄ znamená vyjadrenie súhlasu s tým, že zmysel, ktorý sme my nevytvorili, ale môžeme ho iba prijaÅ¥, je nám už darovaný, takže nám staÄà len prijaÅ¥ ho a odovzdávaÅ¥ sa mu...KresÅ¥anská viera znamená rozhodnutie sa pre to, že neviditeľné je skutoÄnejÅ¡ie ako viditeľné. "
"Viera je nájdenÃm takého Ty, ktoré ma nesie a vo vÅ¡etkej neuspokojenosti a neuspokojiteľnosti ľudských stretnutà dáva prÃsľub nezniÄiteľnej lásky, ktorá veÄnosÅ¥ nie len vyžaduje, ale ju aj poskytuje. KresÅ¥anská viera žije nie len z toho, že jestvuje objektÃvny zmysel, ale že tento zmysel ma pozná a miluje, že sa mu môžem zveriÅ¥ s dôverou dieÅ¥aÅ¥a, ktoré vie, že v matkinom Ty sú vyrieÅ¡ené vÅ¡etky otázky."
Kniha skrze Krédo (VerÃm v Boha) rozoberá základné otázky viery - Kto je Boh, kto JežiÅ¡ Kristus, kto Duch Svätý, Cirkev atÄ. Cez na prvý pohľad jednoduchú modlitbu Ratzinger ponúka hlboké vysvetlenie toho, Äo sa pod jednotlivými formuláciami vlastne myslÃ. Ako to, že Boh je "otec vÅ¡emohúci" a ako to, že sa JežiÅ¡ Kristus "poÄal z Ducha Svätého, narodil sa z Márie panny" alebo do akej miery to že Kristus "umrel a bol pochovaný" je Nietzseovská "smrÅ¥ Boha". VÅ¡etko je tam. V každom prÃpade je to úžasné ÄÃtanie o tom, že kresÅ¥anská viera nie je len taká plytká, prázdna, neschopná vysvetliÅ¥ a obhájiÅ¥ si svoje presvedÄenia. OdporúÄam už len pre to, že je to minimum, Äo možno pre svoju vieru spraviÅ¥.
"Musia teda jestvovaÅ¥ oba spôsoby myslenia: matematické, ktoré treba priradiÅ¥ k uskutoÄniteľnosti, a rozjÃmavé myslenie, ktoré uvažuje o zmysle...Viera v tom zmysle, ako ju chápe Krédo, nie je nehotovou formou poznania, názorom, ktorý by potom bolo možné pretvoriÅ¥ na poznanie v oblasti uskutoÄniteľného. Ona je skôr bytostne inou formou »å³Ü³¦³ó´Ç±¹²Ôého postoja, ktorá stojà povedľa prvotnej formy ako nieÄo samostatné a vlastné, a nemožno ju od tej druhej formy odvodiÅ¥."
A Äo je teda viera podľa Ratzingera?
"Je to na poznanie neredukovateľná, poznaniu nedostupná forma postoja, ktorý Älovek zaujÃma v celku skutoÄnosti, udelenie zmyslu, bez ktorého by Äloveku vÅ¡etko zostalo bez pevného bodu, ktorý predchádza matematickú a vÅ¡etku ostatnú ÄinnosÅ¥ Äloveka a bez ktorého by napokon túto ÄinnosÅ¥ nemohol vykonávaÅ¥, lebo je toho schopný iba tam, kde je zmysel, ktorý ho nesie.â€�
"KresÅ¥ansky veriÅ¥ znamená chápaÅ¥ naÅ¡u existenciu ako odpoveÄ na Slovo, na Logos, ktorý nesie a držà vÅ¡etky veci. NaÅ¡a odpoveÄ znamená vyjadrenie súhlasu s tým, že zmysel, ktorý sme my nevytvorili, ale môžeme ho iba prijaÅ¥, je nám už darovaný, takže nám staÄà len prijaÅ¥ ho a odovzdávaÅ¥ sa mu...KresÅ¥anská viera znamená rozhodnutie sa pre to, že neviditeľné je skutoÄnejÅ¡ie ako viditeľné. "
"Viera je nájdenÃm takého Ty, ktoré ma nesie a vo vÅ¡etkej neuspokojenosti a neuspokojiteľnosti ľudských stretnutà dáva prÃsľub nezniÄiteľnej lásky, ktorá veÄnosÅ¥ nie len vyžaduje, ale ju aj poskytuje. KresÅ¥anská viera žije nie len z toho, že jestvuje objektÃvny zmysel, ale že tento zmysel ma pozná a miluje, že sa mu môžem zveriÅ¥ s dôverou dieÅ¥aÅ¥a, ktoré vie, že v matkinom Ty sú vyrieÅ¡ené vÅ¡etky otázky."
Kniha skrze Krédo (VerÃm v Boha) rozoberá základné otázky viery - Kto je Boh, kto JežiÅ¡ Kristus, kto Duch Svätý, Cirkev atÄ. Cez na prvý pohľad jednoduchú modlitbu Ratzinger ponúka hlboké vysvetlenie toho, Äo sa pod jednotlivými formuláciami vlastne myslÃ. Ako to, že Boh je "otec vÅ¡emohúci" a ako to, že sa JežiÅ¡ Kristus "poÄal z Ducha Svätého, narodil sa z Márie panny" alebo do akej miery to že Kristus "umrel a bol pochovaný" je Nietzseovská "smrÅ¥ Boha". VÅ¡etko je tam. V každom prÃpade je to úžasné ÄÃtanie o tom, že kresÅ¥anská viera nie je len taká plytká, prázdna, neschopná vysvetliÅ¥ a obhájiÅ¥ si svoje presvedÄenia. OdporúÄam už len pre to, že je to minimum, Äo možno pre svoju vieru spraviÅ¥.
Read
January 31, 2025I did not feel comfortable rating this out of five stars but here is my review.
Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is a classic! I got assigned this in some of my theology classes in my undergrad and it is universally known as a must read among Christians. I did what I did a lot of in undergrad: I didn’t read it and got away with it too.
But now I have a capstone and I don’t think I could get away with not reading it. So I read it for the first time on the 4th time being assigned to read it.
Firstly, this is NOT an intro to Christianity for beginners. This is an introduction for seminarians entering into the first year of Theo (5th year of seminary). Very misleading. No pictures.
It is split into three main parts and is based on the apostles creed. Just as the first column of the Catechism breaks down the Nicene Creed, that is what Ratzinger attempts here with the apostles creed.
The first part is about Belief in God and it is HIGHLY philosophical. Maybe I’m just as dumb as a brick, but this went way over my head. Not fun. Very boring.
The second part, and main and largest part of the book, is about Jesus Christ. This part was more theologically focused and IT WAS FANTASTIC. I mean really easy read. Really good. Learned a lot about Jesus. Took lots of it to prayer.
The last part is about the Holy Spirit and Prayer. This was okay. Last 30 pages. Learned some things, not the most interesting.
Overall, I’m glad I read this and I learned a lot; however, I am also very happy that I no longer have to read this.
Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is a classic! I got assigned this in some of my theology classes in my undergrad and it is universally known as a must read among Christians. I did what I did a lot of in undergrad: I didn’t read it and got away with it too.
But now I have a capstone and I don’t think I could get away with not reading it. So I read it for the first time on the 4th time being assigned to read it.
Firstly, this is NOT an intro to Christianity for beginners. This is an introduction for seminarians entering into the first year of Theo (5th year of seminary). Very misleading. No pictures.
It is split into three main parts and is based on the apostles creed. Just as the first column of the Catechism breaks down the Nicene Creed, that is what Ratzinger attempts here with the apostles creed.
The first part is about Belief in God and it is HIGHLY philosophical. Maybe I’m just as dumb as a brick, but this went way over my head. Not fun. Very boring.
The second part, and main and largest part of the book, is about Jesus Christ. This part was more theologically focused and IT WAS FANTASTIC. I mean really easy read. Really good. Learned a lot about Jesus. Took lots of it to prayer.
The last part is about the Holy Spirit and Prayer. This was okay. Last 30 pages. Learned some things, not the most interesting.
Overall, I’m glad I read this and I learned a lot; however, I am also very happy that I no longer have to read this.
June 20, 2024
Ratzinger is incredibly aware of and sympathetic to the epistemological loop we all exist in, believers and doubters alike� in fact, neither camp is mutually exclusive. Working through the Apostles� creed, Ratzinger builds a case for how theology has always engaged with the philosophies of the day, and as such, has a place at the table among today’s concerns. Also. His rhetoric is simply wonderful.
Read
January 16, 2025Etter en kort Solstad-helg mannet jeg meg omsider opp og fullførte denne. Det var jammen ikke lett.
Ratzinger var et geni, men dersom dette virkelig var en innføring til kristendommen tror jeg nok at mer lettfattelige religioner - deriblant den om TV-serien Friends eller bandet Grateful Dead - hadde vunnet middelhavsregionen.
Ratzinger var et geni, men dersom dette virkelig var en innføring til kristendommen tror jeg nok at mer lettfattelige religioner - deriblant den om TV-serien Friends eller bandet Grateful Dead - hadde vunnet middelhavsregionen.
Read
February 6, 2025I understood some of what he said
September 3, 2012
The great theologian Rátzinger's masterful exposition of the Apostles' Creed, the ancient symbol of faith of the Catholic Church. The author responds to the crisis of faith in the mid-twentieth century and attempts to present the faith as entirely reasonable in the midst of doubt. He points out at the very beginning how the greatest of the Saints could themselves suffer doubt in bad circumstances, such as suffering. The author's sympathy for those who suffer physically or mentally is obvious in the gentility of his treatment of their questions and observations. There is a prolonged lament over the cultural separation of the historical (a 'scientific' understanding of how things are observed to proceed) and essential (how things are in themselves) understanding of the reality and how belief can exist, which separation affects the way we think and accept ideas. It allows us to deny anything that is beyond the range of our own sensory experience, it discounts any knowledge that is not directly attained by the senses. But, in the end, everything is belief: we accept either one creed or another, for 'every man must adopt some kind of attitude to the basic questions, and no man can do this in any other way, but that of entertaining belief.' (p.41) Faith is yet an intelligence, not a blind acceptance of untrustworthy material, as is so often asserted; the author distinguishes between knowledge and understanding as the utility that man has with respect to the content of the faith that has been handed down to him as a gift. Knowing how something is is not quite as important as knowing why it is and should be. Above all, faith is a personal dialogue with the One who is, faith is belief in a person, in Jesus Christ, the meaning of the world and of my life.
The book does not proceed along the text of the creed, phrase by phrase, as we may expect. There are three parts, on God, on Christ, on the end of the Creed. But there are broad chapters on faith in the God of the Bible, the distinction between the god of the pre-Christian philosophers and the Christian God as well as the mutual influence of both these ideas on each other, and how faith in God can exist in today's atmosphere. There is a substantial amount of Christology (the science of Christ in his incarnation, passion and resurrection) and a nice little presentation (in an 'excursus') of the Christian understanding of the relationship of the individual to the community, of living and suffering for other people, the abundance of grace flowing through Christ and the subject of Christian hope and how we can live today with an eye to the Last Day.
The author finally does go through line-by-line the various articles of the creed concerning Christ, such as his death and descent into Hell, resurrection, ascention, role of judge, role of king of an everlasting kingdom; statements about Christ, that is, which are problematic to a modern mind. Hell, of example, we don't quite understand anymore, death we fear immensely as an end to the things we enjoy, resurrection the natural sciences have taught us is improbable if not impossible, heaven we have come to see as a place somewhere above, maybe in the clouds. And so on. And then there is the Judgement; well we have the comfort of knowing that we are judged by a Man, like us in all things and even temptation (if not sin). The last part, on the Holy Spirit and the Church, has one overarching theme: that salvation comes not personally but to a community of persons and that the Sacraments of this community make present this salvific work of the Holy Spirit in our times. There is no Church, says the author, without the Sacraments and there are no Sacraments without the Church. The Church is itself a gift of grace and the outpouring of grace. So, in order, the Holy Spirit -> the Holy Catholic Church -> the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. All things are grace, everything is love. 'Because God himself became a mere worm, the last letter in the alphabet of creation, the last letter has become his letter and thereby turned history towards the final victory of love.' (p.260)
This book is far too long and, I think, difficult to read for one who has not made theology their subject. But give it a go as a reference book, for treating the individual aspects of belief and the individual parts of the Creed. Few authors are as clear and as lucid as this one, arranging their material logically and sensibly.
The book does not proceed along the text of the creed, phrase by phrase, as we may expect. There are three parts, on God, on Christ, on the end of the Creed. But there are broad chapters on faith in the God of the Bible, the distinction between the god of the pre-Christian philosophers and the Christian God as well as the mutual influence of both these ideas on each other, and how faith in God can exist in today's atmosphere. There is a substantial amount of Christology (the science of Christ in his incarnation, passion and resurrection) and a nice little presentation (in an 'excursus') of the Christian understanding of the relationship of the individual to the community, of living and suffering for other people, the abundance of grace flowing through Christ and the subject of Christian hope and how we can live today with an eye to the Last Day.
The author finally does go through line-by-line the various articles of the creed concerning Christ, such as his death and descent into Hell, resurrection, ascention, role of judge, role of king of an everlasting kingdom; statements about Christ, that is, which are problematic to a modern mind. Hell, of example, we don't quite understand anymore, death we fear immensely as an end to the things we enjoy, resurrection the natural sciences have taught us is improbable if not impossible, heaven we have come to see as a place somewhere above, maybe in the clouds. And so on. And then there is the Judgement; well we have the comfort of knowing that we are judged by a Man, like us in all things and even temptation (if not sin). The last part, on the Holy Spirit and the Church, has one overarching theme: that salvation comes not personally but to a community of persons and that the Sacraments of this community make present this salvific work of the Holy Spirit in our times. There is no Church, says the author, without the Sacraments and there are no Sacraments without the Church. The Church is itself a gift of grace and the outpouring of grace. So, in order, the Holy Spirit -> the Holy Catholic Church -> the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. All things are grace, everything is love. 'Because God himself became a mere worm, the last letter in the alphabet of creation, the last letter has become his letter and thereby turned history towards the final victory of love.' (p.260)
This book is far too long and, I think, difficult to read for one who has not made theology their subject. But give it a go as a reference book, for treating the individual aspects of belief and the individual parts of the Creed. Few authors are as clear and as lucid as this one, arranging their material logically and sensibly.
March 25, 2021
Knihu som preÄÃtala druhýkrát. Ťažko vyjadriÅ¥, ako veľmi obdivujem Ratzingerovo myslenie. Celu knihu mám osrdieÄkovanú na každej druhej strane a popodÄiarkované veľké množstvo viet... Äoskoro sem niektoré z nich napÃÅ¡em... Jednoducho, je to jedna z naj knÃh, urÄite je pre mňa v TOP 3 a zmenila ma, dojala, oslobodila moje myslenie o viere a vieru zachránila. Bola to radosÅ¥ sa k nej vrátiÅ¥ po 2 rokoch od môjho prvého zážitku s týmto dielom...
April 16, 2023
Libro denso por los temas que trata, aunque Ratzinger escribe sencillo y directo. Está muy bien para aprender cosas que nunca te habÃas planteado y otras que tienes interiorizadas, pero para las que no se suele parar a ver y analizar. Es la obra de una persona excepcional, que décadas después lo serÃa aún más, con una cabeza fuera de lo normal.
December 12, 2019
no doubt, Herr Ratzinger certainly says a lot of sensible and intelligent things in this book and I'm not so blind as not to see that there is a certain need and Daseinsberechtigung for this brand of apologetics that tries to 'speaks the language of the culture' (altho I'd argue Ratzinger's ductus is oftentimes more reminiscent of a Heideggerian "Jargon der Eigentlichkeit") and 'engage the modern world' - but in enganging the world one should always be mindful to be "in it, not off it" and after reading this book you really do have to wonder "La nouvelle théologie, où va-t-elle ?", might it lead certain agnostics to a deeper understanding of the faith? quite possibly. Is this 'faith' the one apostolic, catholic faith? one has to wonder.
Certainly, with goodwill most everything in this book could be interpreted as orthodox; but that is the problem, it quickly becomes a Rorschach test, and the more discerning reader might a find a lot to take offense at; in many ways we find here the same 'weaponized ambiguity' that we have come to know and love from the conciliar documents and it certainly breathes the same anti-traditional air.
This manifests firstly in the view of Scripture. Through endorsement of the so-called historical-critical method Ratzinger essentially denies the character of Scripture as 'divinely inspired'. Instead of the holy Prophets we get neat distinction between 'authors of the book of Isaiaha', instead of Israel being chosen by God, we read that 'Israel chose a God that was such and such', as if one day Abraham and Moses had coffee together, musing about how their God should look like. Well, one might object, if this is what contemporary science tells us why not run with it? However this is only a sympton of a much deeper problem. If scripture is just the result of a historical process, if the story from Abraham to Christ is just the story of an increasing differentiation in the understanding of God, a Hegelian 'coming-to-itself' of Geist instead of a true supernatural revelation, then also Tradition turns into a mere 'factum' of a process, instead of the result of the providential workings of the Holy Spirit in history. And, as Ratzinger himself points out in his cirticism of Marxism, a historical 'factum' always begets a 'faciendem', which we see in his approval of the disgraceful ideas of Teilhard de Chardin.
You thus get a primacy of modern science over tradition, which ofc implies an hegelian view of progress and the Teilhardian conclusion that modern science can tell us more about God than the Doctors and Saints of the Church. As Burkhard, in his critique of Teilhardism, puts it pointedly: "The poor saints! They came a million years too soon. None of them, however, would ever have accepted the doctrine that God could be reached biologically, or again through collective scientific research."
But ofc, not only are the Saints and Doctors surpassed in their (meta)physical knowledge by modern science, but also, this follows logically, by the Nouvelle Théologie, which is just so much more 'enlightened' than those primtive medieval minds; an attitude reflected in the condenscending manner with which the New Theologian speaks of the "manual-theology" (i.e. the perennial philosophical tradition of the Church), an inherent hybris best expressed in the anecdote of Alfrink plugging the microphone of the old and half-blind Ottaviani during the council. In fact when actual Catholic Saints are quoted, which is rarely (mostly Augustine and Anselm; not counting ofc the evangelists) it is often so as to 'correct' their 'old-fashioned' views: "Those were the silly medievals, now ofc we are enlightended and so on" - what a farce! what ignorance, considering that the medievals possesed a religious genius far surpassing the shallow modernism of Ratzinger et al. The New Theologian, enlightened as he is, sees Scripture as an historical document of a certain Zeitgeist and culture; he is able to neatly distinguish the four authors of the pentateuch and can show you exactly where the "jah" in Moses' revelation of the divine name etymologically developed. How much deeper are the medieval scholar's '4 Senses' and the science of typology developed in Alexandria and refined by Augustine.
This difference might be illustrated with a trivial, yet emblematic example: In a lot of medieval sermons we mind find a reference to the Eva-Ave reversal when talking about the announciation. The New Theologian would ofc only sniff disparagingly at such sill word-games and he surely would be quick to point out that the Hebrew word is obviously different, how the latin might even be an imprecise translation from the original greek, he might even show when this word-play developed and in which historical conditions and so on and so on. But ofc the medieval preacher knew perfectly well that the angel wouldn't have said "Ave" in 1st Century Palestine; he nevertheless saw working through this reversal the mystical hand of providence; for him Latin isn't just as a random language, it is the language prefigured in the inscription above the Cross (INRI), destined from the time of the creation of Eve, to be the language of the New Eve (the Roman Church), so that at the time she bit the apple the reversal ('Ave') was already mystically present.
In summa: Tradition is not a 'factum', not even, as Ratzinger seems to imply, a 'collective factum', it is revelation, the 'primacy of acceptance' (to quote Ratzinger again), of what is received; the primacy of the objective over the subjective (these princples might, for example, be illustrated through the sacred art of eastern Icon-Writing, and their tradition of Acheiropoieta images).
Despite all of the above, this is not a bad book by any means, but it is not a catholic book, it is a book befitting the average protestant academic, not a Pope. It is the most insidious kind of religious 'conversativism' (the same brand that in politics fails to conserve anything). -- Yes, yes, indeed, the conciliar conservatives are the good guys after all; they seek for a real hegelian mediation between the Scylla of the 'evil traditionalists' and their 'manual-theology' and the Charybdis of the crazy liberals with their accoustic guitars; they want to be 'orthodox', but 'enlightened', they want novelty, but with a 'hermeneutic of continuity', not a revolution, by any means, but a 'Reformation', seems to them like a reasonable via media. Symptomatic of this attempt at a via media is also the constant 'push and pull', by which Ratzinger quotes arch-heretics like Bultmann and then immediatley retracts by saying "well, well, this is ofc hyperbolic and problematic", or "there are ofc a lot of trouble with the formulation" -- "but ... we see here an important aspect"; "Yes, yes, certainly; turning the Church into just a 'social club', now that would go ofc too far -- but, saying it is the New Ark out of which there is no salvation, would is ofc outdated ecclesiology" and so on and so on.
I do not deny that there are many enganging thoughts to be found here but, as we know, even the Devil quotes scripture and mixes Truth with falsehood; in the end there is no synthesis of True and false, no hegelian 'higher third' between Christ and Antichrist. This conciliar conservatism turn out to be just the same old modernism in new wineskins, which is and will always be the "synthesis of all heresies", as Pius X said.
Certainly, with goodwill most everything in this book could be interpreted as orthodox; but that is the problem, it quickly becomes a Rorschach test, and the more discerning reader might a find a lot to take offense at; in many ways we find here the same 'weaponized ambiguity' that we have come to know and love from the conciliar documents and it certainly breathes the same anti-traditional air.
This manifests firstly in the view of Scripture. Through endorsement of the so-called historical-critical method Ratzinger essentially denies the character of Scripture as 'divinely inspired'. Instead of the holy Prophets we get neat distinction between 'authors of the book of Isaiaha', instead of Israel being chosen by God, we read that 'Israel chose a God that was such and such', as if one day Abraham and Moses had coffee together, musing about how their God should look like. Well, one might object, if this is what contemporary science tells us why not run with it? However this is only a sympton of a much deeper problem. If scripture is just the result of a historical process, if the story from Abraham to Christ is just the story of an increasing differentiation in the understanding of God, a Hegelian 'coming-to-itself' of Geist instead of a true supernatural revelation, then also Tradition turns into a mere 'factum' of a process, instead of the result of the providential workings of the Holy Spirit in history. And, as Ratzinger himself points out in his cirticism of Marxism, a historical 'factum' always begets a 'faciendem', which we see in his approval of the disgraceful ideas of Teilhard de Chardin.
You thus get a primacy of modern science over tradition, which ofc implies an hegelian view of progress and the Teilhardian conclusion that modern science can tell us more about God than the Doctors and Saints of the Church. As Burkhard, in his critique of Teilhardism, puts it pointedly: "The poor saints! They came a million years too soon. None of them, however, would ever have accepted the doctrine that God could be reached biologically, or again through collective scientific research."
But ofc, not only are the Saints and Doctors surpassed in their (meta)physical knowledge by modern science, but also, this follows logically, by the Nouvelle Théologie, which is just so much more 'enlightened' than those primtive medieval minds; an attitude reflected in the condenscending manner with which the New Theologian speaks of the "manual-theology" (i.e. the perennial philosophical tradition of the Church), an inherent hybris best expressed in the anecdote of Alfrink plugging the microphone of the old and half-blind Ottaviani during the council. In fact when actual Catholic Saints are quoted, which is rarely (mostly Augustine and Anselm; not counting ofc the evangelists) it is often so as to 'correct' their 'old-fashioned' views: "Those were the silly medievals, now ofc we are enlightended and so on" - what a farce! what ignorance, considering that the medievals possesed a religious genius far surpassing the shallow modernism of Ratzinger et al. The New Theologian, enlightened as he is, sees Scripture as an historical document of a certain Zeitgeist and culture; he is able to neatly distinguish the four authors of the pentateuch and can show you exactly where the "jah" in Moses' revelation of the divine name etymologically developed. How much deeper are the medieval scholar's '4 Senses' and the science of typology developed in Alexandria and refined by Augustine.
This difference might be illustrated with a trivial, yet emblematic example: In a lot of medieval sermons we mind find a reference to the Eva-Ave reversal when talking about the announciation. The New Theologian would ofc only sniff disparagingly at such sill word-games and he surely would be quick to point out that the Hebrew word is obviously different, how the latin might even be an imprecise translation from the original greek, he might even show when this word-play developed and in which historical conditions and so on and so on. But ofc the medieval preacher knew perfectly well that the angel wouldn't have said "Ave" in 1st Century Palestine; he nevertheless saw working through this reversal the mystical hand of providence; for him Latin isn't just as a random language, it is the language prefigured in the inscription above the Cross (INRI), destined from the time of the creation of Eve, to be the language of the New Eve (the Roman Church), so that at the time she bit the apple the reversal ('Ave') was already mystically present.
In summa: Tradition is not a 'factum', not even, as Ratzinger seems to imply, a 'collective factum', it is revelation, the 'primacy of acceptance' (to quote Ratzinger again), of what is received; the primacy of the objective over the subjective (these princples might, for example, be illustrated through the sacred art of eastern Icon-Writing, and their tradition of Acheiropoieta images).
Despite all of the above, this is not a bad book by any means, but it is not a catholic book, it is a book befitting the average protestant academic, not a Pope. It is the most insidious kind of religious 'conversativism' (the same brand that in politics fails to conserve anything). -- Yes, yes, indeed, the conciliar conservatives are the good guys after all; they seek for a real hegelian mediation between the Scylla of the 'evil traditionalists' and their 'manual-theology' and the Charybdis of the crazy liberals with their accoustic guitars; they want to be 'orthodox', but 'enlightened', they want novelty, but with a 'hermeneutic of continuity', not a revolution, by any means, but a 'Reformation', seems to them like a reasonable via media. Symptomatic of this attempt at a via media is also the constant 'push and pull', by which Ratzinger quotes arch-heretics like Bultmann and then immediatley retracts by saying "well, well, this is ofc hyperbolic and problematic", or "there are ofc a lot of trouble with the formulation" -- "but ... we see here an important aspect"; "Yes, yes, certainly; turning the Church into just a 'social club', now that would go ofc too far -- but, saying it is the New Ark out of which there is no salvation, would is ofc outdated ecclesiology" and so on and so on.
I do not deny that there are many enganging thoughts to be found here but, as we know, even the Devil quotes scripture and mixes Truth with falsehood; in the end there is no synthesis of True and false, no hegelian 'higher third' between Christ and Antichrist. This conciliar conservatism turn out to be just the same old modernism in new wineskins, which is and will always be the "synthesis of all heresies", as Pius X said.
January 7, 2023
To je prostÄ› hroznÄ› těžký. Velmi nesouhlasÃm se způsobem jak Benedikt XVI. vedl cÃrkev, velkou Äást jeho teologických vývodů nedokážu úplnÄ› pÅ™ijmout v srdci a mám silnou potÅ™ebu se vymezovat. Jenže...ona je to prostÄ› dobrá teologie, s dobrými pÅ™Ãklady, výkladem Bible i následné tradice a mÃsty s až pÅ™ekvapivou pokorou a sebekritiÄnostà vůÄi cÃrkvi.
Nenà to úplnÄ› lehké Ätenà na nedÄ›li (i když teda, upÅ™ÃmnÄ› jsem se mÃsty bavil vÃce než u té BÃlé vody, ajaja), mÃsty to bylo i pro mÄ› s nÄ›jakým tÃm cÃrkevnÃm/ historickým pozadÃm pÅ™iznanÄ› Å¡patnÄ› srozumitelné (TAK JAK JE TO TY VOLE S TÄšMI TÄšLY), ale pokud vás tyhle témata zajÃmajÃ, tak si to dejte, je to dobrý.
(Äteno v lednu 2023 podruhé, poprvé nÄ›kdy 2012)
Nenà to úplnÄ› lehké Ätenà na nedÄ›li (i když teda, upÅ™ÃmnÄ› jsem se mÃsty bavil vÃce než u té BÃlé vody, ajaja), mÃsty to bylo i pro mÄ› s nÄ›jakým tÃm cÃrkevnÃm/ historickým pozadÃm pÅ™iznanÄ› Å¡patnÄ› srozumitelné (TAK JAK JE TO TY VOLE S TÄšMI TÄšLY), ale pokud vás tyhle témata zajÃmajÃ, tak si to dejte, je to dobrý.
(Äteno v lednu 2023 podruhé, poprvé nÄ›kdy 2012)
February 7, 2025
First, the title appears a misnomer. This is not a book to hand to someone unfamiliar with the teachings of Christianity to provide a basic overview. It, rather, provides a largely philosophical overview of Christian belief according to the Apostles Creed.
That said, some of this was over my head. The parts that weren’t, however, were beautiful and profound. I both appreciate and am somewhat intimidated by the theology of Pope Benedict XVI, and I’d like to read more of it.
Would recommend.
That said, some of this was over my head. The parts that weren’t, however, were beautiful and profound. I both appreciate and am somewhat intimidated by the theology of Pope Benedict XVI, and I’d like to read more of it.
Would recommend.
January 31, 2012
I started this book with high expectations, and the introduction was promising, in so much as it discussed the need for dialogue between theists and atheists. However, there really was nothing here about why one might believe in Christianity. At one point the author essentially confirmed it does all come down to faith, and for me that echoes Kierkegaards blind leap. But for someone looking at it from the outside there's really no more reason to leap to Christianity than anything else, be it Buddhism or the Flying Spaghetti monster.
As the book continued I felt that it simply dove further into what I would call etymological rhetoric, in which passages are interpreted in ways that are most helpful. For example, at one point, the author mentions that we have to take a passage about love being more powerful than death literally, even if that's hard to comprehend, because we can't just alter the meaning of the text. Shortly after that, we are told we have to take a passage about the descent into hell and ascension into heaven metaphorically, because obviously in the modern world we know that can't be literal. If it was convenient to use a Greek or Latin translation to change the meaning of a passage, the author had no problem doing so, but if English was convenient, we didn't need to bother with translations.
Another theme that bothered me was how Christianity was based on the god of the philosophers rather than of mythology. He then explains how the concept grew from the god of the philosophers, but to me all of the changes sounded like it moved the concept directly back to a more mythological god, for example, one that is personified and cares about and interacts with humans.
In summary, I feel that this was an eloquent attempt to interpret material to fit to a preexisting vision. Perhaps that's good theology, but it's poor philosophy.
As the book continued I felt that it simply dove further into what I would call etymological rhetoric, in which passages are interpreted in ways that are most helpful. For example, at one point, the author mentions that we have to take a passage about love being more powerful than death literally, even if that's hard to comprehend, because we can't just alter the meaning of the text. Shortly after that, we are told we have to take a passage about the descent into hell and ascension into heaven metaphorically, because obviously in the modern world we know that can't be literal. If it was convenient to use a Greek or Latin translation to change the meaning of a passage, the author had no problem doing so, but if English was convenient, we didn't need to bother with translations.
Another theme that bothered me was how Christianity was based on the god of the philosophers rather than of mythology. He then explains how the concept grew from the god of the philosophers, but to me all of the changes sounded like it moved the concept directly back to a more mythological god, for example, one that is personified and cares about and interacts with humans.
In summary, I feel that this was an eloquent attempt to interpret material to fit to a preexisting vision. Perhaps that's good theology, but it's poor philosophy.
July 17, 2017
წიგნáƒ� áƒáƒ”რთიáƒáƒœáƒ”ბს კáƒáƒ დინáƒáƒš იáƒáƒ–ეáƒ� რáƒáƒ¢áƒªáƒ˜áƒœáƒ’ერიáƒ� ( შემდგáƒáƒ›áƒ¨áƒ� პáƒáƒžáƒ˜ ბენედიქტáƒ� XVI ) გიáƒáƒ¢áƒ˜áƒœáƒ’ენშáƒ� წáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხულ ლექციებს სáƒáƒ›áƒáƒªáƒ˜áƒ¥áƒ£áƒšáƒ სიმბáƒáƒšáƒáƒ¡ შესáƒáƒ®áƒ”áƒ�. áƒáƒ•áƒ¢áƒáƒ ი უáƒáƒ¦áƒ ესáƒáƒ“ სáƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ¢áƒ”რესáƒáƒ� გáƒáƒœáƒ˜áƒ®áƒ˜áƒšáƒáƒ•áƒ¡ სიმბáƒáƒšáƒáƒ¡ თითáƒáƒ”უáƒ� პუნქტს, წáƒáƒ მáƒáƒáƒ©áƒ”ნს კáƒáƒ•áƒ¨áƒ˜áƒ ებáƒ� ბიბლიáƒáƒ¡áƒ—áƒáƒœ დრმიმáƒáƒ თებებáƒ� თáƒáƒœáƒáƒ›áƒ”დრáƒáƒ•áƒ� თეáƒáƒšáƒáƒ’იáƒáƒ¡áƒ—áƒáƒœ. áƒáƒ¦áƒ¡áƒáƒœáƒ˜áƒ¨áƒœáƒáƒ•áƒ˜áƒ,რáƒáƒ� წიგნáƒ� გáƒáƒ›áƒáƒ•áƒ˜áƒ“რ1968 წელს, áƒáƒ®áƒáƒšáƒ’áƒáƒ–რდული áƒáƒ›áƒ‘áƒáƒ®áƒ˜áƒ�, ძველáƒ� ღირებულებებიáƒ� გáƒáƒ“áƒáƒ¤áƒáƒ¡áƒ”ბიáƒ�, ლიბერáƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ ი თეáƒáƒšáƒáƒ’იიáƒ� áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒáƒ‘ის, ეკუმენურáƒ� მáƒáƒ«áƒ áƒáƒáƒ‘ებიáƒ� გáƒáƒ«áƒšáƒ˜áƒ”რებიáƒ�, დáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ”თში შემáƒáƒáƒ ილáƒ� ძლიერი áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ£áƒ áƒ� მსáƒáƒ¤áƒšáƒ®áƒ”დვისრდრრელიგიების ეპáƒáƒ¥áƒáƒ¨áƒ�. áƒáƒ›áƒ˜áƒ¢áƒáƒ›, áƒáƒ•áƒ¢áƒáƒ ი áƒáƒ მáƒáƒšáƒáƒ•áƒ¡ იმ მიზáƒáƒœáƒ¡, რáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ� áƒáƒ› წიგნáƒ� უსáƒáƒ®áƒáƒ•áƒ� - ერთი მხრიáƒ� წáƒáƒ მáƒáƒáƒ©áƒ˜áƒœáƒáƒ� ,რáƒáƒ� ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒ� თáƒáƒ•áƒ˜áƒ¡áƒ˜ áƒáƒ სიáƒ�, ვეáƒ� იქნებრგáƒáƒœáƒ®áƒ˜áƒšáƒ£áƒšáƒ�, რáƒáƒ’áƒáƒ ც "áƒáƒ‘სáƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ¢áƒ£áƒ ი áƒáƒ”შმáƒáƒ იტების ისეთივáƒ� ნáƒáƒ¬áƒ˜áƒšáƒ˜, რáƒáƒ’áƒáƒ ც , მáƒáƒ’áƒáƒšáƒ˜áƒ—áƒáƒ� ბუდიზმáƒ� " დრáƒ�.áƒ�. დრáƒ�.áƒ�. áƒáƒ›áƒáƒ•áƒ“რáƒáƒ£áƒšáƒáƒ�, ცდილáƒáƒ‘áƒ� ( რáƒáƒ›áƒ“ენáƒáƒ“ გáƒáƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒ“ის, სხვრსáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხიáƒ) , გáƒáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ—ილáƒáƒ¡ áƒ�.áƒ�. ლიბერáƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ ი თეáƒáƒšáƒáƒ’იიáƒ� მიერშექმნილი ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ›áƒ“ელი იესáƒáƒ� , რáƒáƒ’áƒáƒ ც მáƒáƒ ტáƒáƒ“ენ სიყვáƒáƒ ულის მქáƒáƒ“áƒáƒ’ებლიáƒ�, პáƒáƒ ტრეტი დრთქვáƒáƒ�, რáƒáƒ� თუ ეს áƒáƒ¡áƒ”áƒ, მáƒáƒ¨áƒ˜áƒ� ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒ�, რáƒáƒ’áƒáƒ ც მáƒáƒ«áƒ¦áƒ•áƒ ებáƒ� მáƒáƒ™áƒšáƒ”ბულირშინáƒáƒ’áƒáƒ� ლáƒáƒ’იკáƒáƒ� დრსáƒáƒ”რთáƒáƒ� áƒáƒªáƒ“ენილიáƒ� რეáƒáƒšáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¡.
მსგáƒáƒ•áƒ¡áƒ� სáƒáƒ®áƒ˜áƒ� წიგნებáƒ� - შესáƒáƒ•áƒáƒšáƒ˜ ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¨áƒ�, ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒ£áƒšáƒ� რწმენიáƒ� áƒáƒ სი დრსხáƒ�. , წáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხულáƒ� მáƒáƒ¥áƒ•áƒ� სხვრ,áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ”თის ეკლესიის წáƒáƒ მáƒáƒáƒ›áƒ“გენელი , áƒáƒ•áƒ¢áƒáƒ ებისáƒáƒ� დრკიდეáƒ� ერთხელ გáƒáƒáƒªáƒ”ბულáƒ� ვáƒáƒ�, თუ რáƒáƒ›áƒ“ენáƒáƒ“ გáƒáƒœáƒ¡áƒ®áƒ•áƒáƒ•áƒ“ებრდáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ£áƒ - ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒ£áƒšáƒ� ნáƒáƒ™áƒáƒ“ი თáƒáƒ•áƒ˜áƒ¡áƒ˜ ფილáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ¤áƒ˜áƒ£áƒ áƒ� სáƒáƒ¤áƒ£áƒ«áƒ•áƒšáƒ”ბითრდრრáƒáƒªáƒ˜áƒáƒœáƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ áƒ� გáƒáƒáƒ–რებიáƒ� უნáƒáƒ ით áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ£áƒ ისáƒáƒ’áƒáƒœ. მáƒáƒ ტáƒ� ის რáƒáƒ� ღირს, რáƒáƒ� უáƒáƒ¦áƒ ესáƒáƒ“ სáƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ¢áƒ”რესრმსჯელáƒáƒ‘ისáƒáƒ�, ხვდები მáƒáƒ ქსიáƒ�, სáƒáƒ ტრიáƒ�, ნიცშეს, კáƒáƒ›áƒ˜áƒ£áƒ¡, ჰესეáƒ�, ტეიáƒáƒ� დე შáƒáƒ დენის, áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ¨áƒ¢áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ˜áƒ¡áƒ� დრსხვáƒáƒ—რსáƒáƒ®áƒ”ლებს. სწáƒáƒ ედ მáƒáƒ� მáƒáƒ«áƒ¦áƒ•áƒ ებებთáƒáƒ� მიმáƒáƒ თებáƒáƒ¨áƒ� უნდრწáƒáƒ მáƒáƒ©áƒœáƒ“ეს, თუ "რრშეუძლიáƒ�" ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¡, რáƒáƒ›áƒ“ენáƒáƒ“ რელევáƒáƒœáƒ¢áƒ£áƒ ირიგáƒ� დღეს, შეუძლიáƒ� თუ áƒáƒ áƒ� გáƒáƒ“áƒáƒ ჩეს დრგáƒáƒ¡áƒªáƒ”ს პáƒáƒ¡áƒ£áƒ®áƒ˜ იმ სáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხებáƒ�, რáƒáƒ� ეპáƒáƒ¥áƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ áƒ� მნიშვნელáƒáƒ‘ისáƒáƒ.
მსგáƒáƒ•áƒ¡áƒ� სáƒáƒ®áƒ˜áƒ� წიგნებáƒ� - შესáƒáƒ•áƒáƒšáƒ˜ ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¨áƒ�, ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒ£áƒšáƒ� რწმენიáƒ� áƒáƒ სი დრსხáƒ�. , წáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხულáƒ� მáƒáƒ¥áƒ•áƒ� სხვრ,áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ”თის ეკლესიის წáƒáƒ მáƒáƒáƒ›áƒ“გენელი , áƒáƒ•áƒ¢áƒáƒ ებისáƒáƒ� დრკიდეáƒ� ერთხელ გáƒáƒáƒªáƒ”ბულáƒ� ვáƒáƒ�, თუ რáƒáƒ›áƒ“ენáƒáƒ“ გáƒáƒœáƒ¡áƒ®áƒ•áƒáƒ•áƒ“ებრდáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ£áƒ - ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒ£áƒšáƒ� ნáƒáƒ™áƒáƒ“ი თáƒáƒ•áƒ˜áƒ¡áƒ˜ ფილáƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ¤áƒ˜áƒ£áƒ áƒ� სáƒáƒ¤áƒ£áƒ«áƒ•áƒšáƒ”ბითრდრრáƒáƒªáƒ˜áƒáƒœáƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ áƒ� გáƒáƒáƒ–რებიáƒ� უნáƒáƒ ით áƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒáƒ¡áƒáƒ•áƒšáƒ£áƒ ისáƒáƒ’áƒáƒœ. მáƒáƒ ტáƒ� ის რáƒáƒ� ღირს, რáƒáƒ� უáƒáƒ¦áƒ ესáƒáƒ“ სáƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ¢áƒ”რესრმსჯელáƒáƒ‘ისáƒáƒ�, ხვდები მáƒáƒ ქსიáƒ�, სáƒáƒ ტრიáƒ�, ნიცშეს, კáƒáƒ›áƒ˜áƒ£áƒ¡, ჰესეáƒ�, ტეიáƒáƒ� დე შáƒáƒ დენის, áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ¨áƒ¢áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ˜áƒ¡áƒ� დრსხვáƒáƒ—რსáƒáƒ®áƒ”ლებს. სწáƒáƒ ედ მáƒáƒ� მáƒáƒ«áƒ¦áƒ•áƒ ებებთáƒáƒ� მიმáƒáƒ თებáƒáƒ¨áƒ� უნდრწáƒáƒ მáƒáƒ©áƒœáƒ“ეს, თუ "რრშეუძლიáƒ�" ქრისტიáƒáƒœáƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¡, რáƒáƒ›áƒ“ენáƒáƒ“ რელევáƒáƒœáƒ¢áƒ£áƒ ირიგáƒ� დღეს, შეუძლიáƒ� თუ áƒáƒ áƒ� გáƒáƒ“áƒáƒ ჩეს დრგáƒáƒ¡áƒªáƒ”ს პáƒáƒ¡áƒ£áƒ®áƒ˜ იმ სáƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხებáƒ�, რáƒáƒ� ეპáƒáƒ¥áƒáƒšáƒ£áƒ áƒ� მნიშვნელáƒáƒ‘ისáƒáƒ.
Read
March 13, 2014This is a deep book that is difficult to read but is ultimately rewarding. Ratzinger is at his best in the first half, where he contrasts the secular or scientific outlook with the Christian outlook and where he develops the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ's two natures. However, in the second half, where he carefully analyzes the Apostles Creed, he too often reverts to the dry tone of a German professor (which he is). There are moments of sheer brilliance, though, where he captures the essence of Christianity:
"Man is finally intended for the other, the truly other, for God; he is all the more himself the more he is with the entirely Other, with God. Accordingly, he is completely himself when he has ceased to stand in himself, when in fact he is pure openness to God. To put it again in different terms: man comes to himself by moving out beyond himself. Jesus Christ, though, is the one who has moved right out beyond himself and, thus, the man who has truly come to himself... It is openness to the whole, to the infinite, that makes man complete. Man is man by reaching out infinitely beyond himself, and he is consequently more of a man the less enclosed he is in himself, the less 'limited' he is. For - let me repeat - that man is most fully man, indeed the true man, who is most unlimited, who not only has contact with the infinite - the Infinite Being!- but is one with him: Jesus Christ. In him 'hominization' has truly reached its goal."
"Man is finally intended for the other, the truly other, for God; he is all the more himself the more he is with the entirely Other, with God. Accordingly, he is completely himself when he has ceased to stand in himself, when in fact he is pure openness to God. To put it again in different terms: man comes to himself by moving out beyond himself. Jesus Christ, though, is the one who has moved right out beyond himself and, thus, the man who has truly come to himself... It is openness to the whole, to the infinite, that makes man complete. Man is man by reaching out infinitely beyond himself, and he is consequently more of a man the less enclosed he is in himself, the less 'limited' he is. For - let me repeat - that man is most fully man, indeed the true man, who is most unlimited, who not only has contact with the infinite - the Infinite Being!- but is one with him: Jesus Christ. In him 'hominization' has truly reached its goal."
January 1, 2017
Pope Benedict, before he was pope, wrote this book to explain the details of the apostles creed and thus introduce the reader to the basics of Christianity. Just glancing at the title might make you think this book is one to hand to someone new to the faith who wants to learn more. But this book is a bit heady. I'm not Catholic, so maybe this is the sort of book new Catholics read, I don't know. I haven't met many non-Catholic Christians who read this kind of book (not to say it wouldn't be good for them too!). This seems like a book for first-year seminarians or perhaps college students wanting an intro to Christian theology. He spends much of the book on God, Jesus and the Trinity, barely touching on other aspects of the creed such as church and Spirit. The book could as easily be called, an exposition of the Trinity and Jesus.
Overall, I liked it. I think it is worth a read, as any of Benedict's works are, by anyone whether Catholic or not. I just don't think I'd give it to a person new to faith and say, "here, let me introduce Christianity to you!"
Overall, I liked it. I think it is worth a read, as any of Benedict's works are, by anyone whether Catholic or not. I just don't think I'd give it to a person new to faith and say, "here, let me introduce Christianity to you!"
May 9, 2017
I have two complaints about this book. First, calling this an introduction is, uh, not the most accurate description. More fundamentally, the book has way too much of the spirit of the 1960s in it. As such it compares unfavorably with Ratzinger's later works.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.