Difficile est satiram non scribere “It is hard not to write a satire. This saying by the Romanian poet Juvenal springs to mind after reading a guest contribution by Magnus Striet, published by the Freiburg professor in the propaganda forums of German bishops. He attributes the criticism of the Nordic and Polish bishops’ conferences to The deep concern about the truth of the Gospel and the unity of the Church, as well as the concerns contained in the Open Letter of 74 American and African Cardinals about the German Theses.
In his opinion, their warning of schism could only be justified by the fact that these “outstanding personalities” did not take seriously the enlightened criticism of ecclesiastical Christianity and the sacraments, and, above all, with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. And even if they read the most important authors of revelation and criticism of religion since the eighteenth century, they would never have been able to understand or even refute them beforehand. For he believed that only on the intellectual level of German theology and its offshoots, a foreigner could transcend the few phrases acquired in the new scholastic colleges of his homeland.
Apparently, the official response from the President of the German Bishops’ Conference to his colleagues from the world church, who suffer from a lack of awareness of the problem of the modern age, was not enough to advance the German claim to leadership in the world. a church. Therefore, the great sermon of the Synodal Way had to be delivered in battle. For, according to Great Street, the revealed truth is nothing but a fantasy of intellectually limited bishops and popes, who, despite their lack of education, are still quite elusive, and they are “the very complex history of Christianity, marked by upheavals and shifts in the traditional heritage” . dogma, which only existed in the plural, or just wanted to avoid any discussion by the singular construction they built.”
“Because only on the intellectual level of German theology
and its branches, he says
A foreigner comes around the few phrases that have been learned
in the new schoolhouses of his home country.”
Pride of events
Professor Street is now 58 years old, and he should have passed the heyday of youthful pride in his hyper-intelligence and professorship, and come up with more Socratic humility: “I know I know nothing.” Or in quite simple terms: “Others also know something and I don’t know everything or always better.” As much as we value reason in its synthesis with faith in Catholic theology, in contrast to the religion of abstract feeling, we do not have to wait for belated wisdom to understand that finite reason, thrown back upon itself, only comes to “knowledge that swells as love builds.” God makes it possible for us in the light of his Spirit to know him, because he already knew us (cf. 1 Cor 8, 2). Revealed faith saves all who accept it, even if they understand nothing of theological discussions. Theology is important to the Church and her teaching office, but it is not necessary for the salvation of the faith of the simple and weak. Grace suffices.
Our professor himself is somewhat jovial with the protagonists of the synodal path when he doubts the heroic struggle for the legally guaranteed rights of self-determination behind their agenda. It has already been exercised in liberal democracies, and only now it must be fought against the “monopoly of real decision-making” by Episcopal bureaucrats. In the struggle to assert the rights of self-determination for each individual Christian in all that is personally real or good and thus personally pleasurable to him, division must also be accepted, on the model of Jesus. Prayer for the unity of the disciples in faith in the Father and the Son, so that the world may believe in him as the Apostle of the Father, can easily be dispelled by doubts about its historical authenticity.
Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God, which comes with his teaching and is historically fulfilled in the cross and resurrection, is by no means the “core” of Street’s gospel. For him alone, the basis, ideal, and worthy of imitation of Jesus was his conscious defection with the religious establishment of the time.
Of course, it is not intended to establish German church officials with their willing representatives in bishop’s clothing, but “the Pope and the bishops in union with him, to whom Christ has entrusted the care and leadership of his Church” (cf. Vatican II Lumen Gentium 8). According to this, Jesus did not “shed his blood for us for the forgiveness of sins” in any way. Only “because of his criticism of an exclusionary ethic based on religion, he died.” Whether the German Synodalists, in their struggle against the oppressive sexual morals of the Catholic Church, the blessing of same-sex couples and against the priesthood and celibacy, against the Church’s hierarchical constitution and against the primacy of the teaching and authority of the Roman Pope, gave their “dissenting follow Jesus” to the point of death or would prefer to “silence” the Catholic believers?
The professor says very clearly: If Jesus were still alive today, he would have been on the side of the German Synodal Way. Only in the spirit of this long-dead person, who may have risen only in the imagination of liberal Catholics, says Street, can we interpret the Bible. We only have to learn from the controversies in church history and doctrine that there is no divinely revealed truth which the Church can ascertain, “which man as a whole freely surrenders to God with reason and free will in faith, hope and love” (cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum 5) . Accordingly, no socially established church is visible “in Christ is the sacrament of the world’s salvation” (Lumen gentium 1; 48; joy and spes 45).
Do not be afraid of heresy
So do not take cardinals and bishops seriously! Do not be afraid of apostasy, heresy and division! All would be well if we took Professor Street seriously and blindly followed his intuition.
It is no coincidence that the professor raised his index finger and forefinger right at the beginning of his remarks, as Episcopal reviewers cautioned guests to give an answer only if they were asked beforehand. Otherwise, the professor only deals with people who have tasted the “taste of freedom” that many Catholics have long wanted to taste as being in keeping with the Bible.
The schism should not be feared as a loss of unity with the rest of the neglected Church of the world because it has been there for a long time anyway and acts as a catalyst on the way to the independence of all Christians from the word and will of God, and has also provided teaching in doctrine and catechism. Catholics who have tasted freedom are finally breaking away from the “Roman Catholic Church, which coalesces under the pope and the doctrine of unity”, which the reformers had already successfully demonstrated in the sixteenth century. It is now a matter of coming boldly into the modern age and adopting his recipe for success for the self-secularization of the church.
Christianity is not the disciples’ unity in believing in Jesus, Christ and the “Son of the living God,” but at its core a conflict and struggle over the interpretation of an unknown truth. One is only surprised that, in view of the inability to have a basic knowledge of natural and explained facts, the intellectually superior professor nonetheless made the difference between “good Catholic liberals” and “invalid Catholics,” that is, “foreign cardinals who should not be taken intellectually on the Seriously and bishops” certainly correlates with enthusiasm for “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, bisexual, and transgender rights” and the acceptance of non-male biologists “in offices” and the unconditional consent to “so-called
After much master-level acrobatics, my stupor-burdened episcopal mind yearns for the simple reasoning of a second-century Catholic doctor, declared by Pope Francis a “doctor of unity” on January 21, 2022. In AD 185, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote against forgery The Pluralistic and Subjectiveness of the Apostolic Faith by the Gnostics: The Right Way. Thus the implications of their teachings are meaningless and irrelevant. But the path of those who come out of the Church leads the whole world, for it contains the well-established tradition of the Apostles, and leaves us seeing one and the same faith in everything, and all accepting the same God the Father and believing in the same order of salvation for the incarnation of the Son of God; They know the same bestowal of the soul and meditate on the same commandments and maintain the same form of ecclesiastical formation, and they wait for the coming of the Lord Himself and hold fast to the same salvation of all man, that is, to body and soul. And in fellowship with her, we find the same way of salvation in the whole world” (Against Heresies 5 20, 1).
break the monopoly
Don’t be afraid of dichotomy because that dichotomy already exists. Such was the reaction of the theologian from Freiburg Magnus Street, contributing to the critique of cardinals and bishops from the universal church on the synodal path. For Street, it was now a matter of eliminating the monopoly of the episcopal hierarchies, including the Pope, in decisions about truth. Jesus was also on the side of the German Synods because he was also cut off from the religious establishment of his day. But there is no truth to Street’s faith.
The print edition of Tagespost complements the current news on die-tagespost.de with background information and analysis.