Why not read what the Vatican actually said:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20041213_notification-fr-haight_en.html

Then compare it with what Stevens-Arroyo says...

Then question exactly the credibility of Stevens-Arroyo to write as a representative of the Catholic faith.

candide:

The Christian churches have been anti-intellectual since that day some 1950 years ago when some Jew in Jerusalem said to some Christian missionary: prove the nonsense you preach is true; give me some evidence!

September 2, 2008 10:03 AM

__________________________________

Candide is a rabid, racist Muslim who has posted anti-Christian and shockingly racists comments about Michelle Obama on this forum. Best to ignore him/her.

Candide,
demonstrate that the Catholic church, home of B16 and Thomas Acquinas, is anti-intellectual.

CCNL:
are you trying to discredit St. Paul's teaching because he thought that women should wear veils at Mass? I hope you can do better than that. A for the statement that "..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel ("pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)." That's a pretty big jump from what Paul actually said :

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels"

As for your statement that Paul might just have been drunk or hallucinating his view of Jesus: that's a pretty weak argument, that has no basis other than your idle speculation. Nothing in Paul's history suggests he is either a drunkard or someone prone to hallucinations.

As for why God chose Paul rather than a Roman emperor to appear to, don't you see how Paul better met God's needs. If he had appeared to a Roman Emperor, his word would have been based on force, not belief. Much better for it to have been spread on the basis of the power of the message borne by those of little to no personal power.

By the way, your comment about Paul jumping from Judaism to Christianity because he thought the Jews were becoming a second class cult is completely nonsensical. At they time he did so, Christianity was basically a small, persecuted offshoot of Judaism itself. Why jump from a small "cult" to an even smaller offshoot. If he was concerned, he could have just embraced paganism.

As for the monetary aspects of your post - don't assume that money is everyone's priority. It isn't.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

You wrote, "The physical resurrection of Jesus as per current graduate theology classes at many large Catholic universities-", just because something is taught at many "large Catholic universities" does not mean that it is true.

You also wrote, "Amazing how this agrees with Professor JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.", do you find this amazing because the bible itself speaks of this in the last days?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANONYMOUS

Thank you for the link in your posting of 8-30-2008 at 3:24 AM.

From what I read on that link, Father Roger Haight, S.J. does not seem to have a clue about God.

I have met God the Father and I have met God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

God is a Trinity and it doesn't matter if anyone believes it or not, Truth is Truth, Truth is not dependent upon someone believing it.

Just as the Eucharist is not a symbol of Jesus but is in fact, Jesus, Jesus is not a symbol of God but is in fact, God.

God is not only a Trinity but God is a Trinity of PURE LOVE.

I have not read Fr Haight's book, so I am going by what is written on the http site and what it says that Fr Haight wrote, not only about God but about Christianity, it seems to me that Fr Haight should go ahead and throw the whole bible away rather than slicing and dicing it to his heart's content and it becomes nothing more than a bloody, dead mess with no life.

If someone does not believe what is written in the bible that is fine but maybe they should just ignore it completely rather than using it to justify their own misinterpretations thereof.

Doesn't it seem that Jesus spoke so simple and direct that the "learned" not only of His day but also of our day are deaf and blind? "They have ears but do not hear, they have eyes but do not see".

"I will send the simple to confound the wise", sound familiar? "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men, the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men", doesn't there seem to be many, many people that try to put God in a box?

A statement from that http site, "This theological position fundamentally denies the universal salvific mission of Jesus Christ", interesting statement, is it not?

It seems that according to the http site that Fr Haight cannot even think of what Jesus did without relating it to religion whereas Almighty God becoming One of us is just part of His Plan that is unfolding before our very eyes and as I have said before not only religion but also spirituality can get in the way of God.

I would also like to repeat two things: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affilliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God's Plan is for All of humanity to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Paul C, Paul C, Paul C,

But did Paul see the physical, risen, simple preacher man on the way to Damascus? Or was it in a drunken stupor/dream/hallucination brought on by his persecution of the Christians. It is obvious that Paul knew all about Jesus since he was a rabbinic persecutor of said Christian cult. And why pray tell did Jesus not appear to Tiberius or Caligula or Nero?? Sure would have saved a lot of time.

It was obvious that Judaism in its conflict with Rome was about to be relegated to a second class cult. Paul saw the "writing on the wall" and set about getting ahead of the destruction of Jerusalem and the near annihilation of the Jewish race.

And please note the "trips" Paul took. Definitely not affordable by a poor Roman Jew.

And please note the extensive monies collected from the Gentiles for famine relief in Palestine. That won the day for the Gentiles entry into the new Jewish cult without having to undergo circumcision.

And please note, Paul's death appears to be heavily embellished. See Professor JD Crossan's book, In Search of Paul, p. 401 for a good review of the history of his martyrdom i.e. Paul (as was Peter) was rounded up along with many Christians in Nero's purge of the cult using the great fire of Rome as the pretext for the executions. No special death wishes granted. It was a group execution.

With respect to Paul's "unchristian", prudish comments about women, Professor Bruce Chilton, a contemporary historic Jesus and Paul exegete says it best:

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel ("pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)."

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Catholicism/Christianity.

The Christian churches have been anti-intellectual since that day some 1950 years ago when some Jew in Jerusalem said to some Christian missionary: prove the nonsense you preach is true; give me some evidence!

CCNl:
Isn't the most likely motivation for St. Paul the one he describes in his epistles: He saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, who told him that he "was kicking against the goad" and informed him that his mission was to preach Christianity. None of your proposed motives makes much sense in the context of Paul's life and actions.

let's look at them:

Was he out to save Judaism?
==> Was it not Paul who was in the lead of dropping the requirements of the Jewish law from the Gentile converts to Christianity?

To make a few bucks i.e. the first media evangelist?
==> Paul lived in poverty and supported himself in his mission by making tents, choosing to do so because he didn't want to be a burden on his converts. He also underwent tremendous hardship, persecution, and ultimately execution for his efforts. A person doesn't do that to make money..

To be a powerful rabbi?
==> Before his conversion, he was already a powerful rabbi, getting approval form the chief priests to bring to justice all the Christians he could find, even from Syria. Why would he suddenly drop that and become the spokesman for those he was actively persecuting if it wasn't for the dramatic conversion he describes?

Paul's views about women and his prediction of the imminent second coming eliminate him as direct link to god and therefore his epistles were not god-inspired or inerrant
==> it is obvious why you want to dicredit St. Paul. If he is credible, none of your arguments are valid. However, he can not be so easily dismissed. What about his view of women eliminates the possibility that he was inspired by God? Please make that linkage clear. Also, why does it make his message any less believable that he didn't know the date of the second coming. He never said that God had given him that knowledge.

CCNL, you are NOT a Christian.

Will you please do everybody a favor and admit that, instead of going on and on and on........?

Paul C, Paul C, Paul C,

Got down to your "five eye witness" accounts and stopped. Not even the Vatican will attest to that.

I suggest buying and perusing Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament. Said book has been approved by the RCC. It is "The Bible" for those interested in a updated orthodox view of Catholicism to include what little information is known about the M, M, L, and J, Jesus' embellishers, myth makers, agents and advertising agency. And the reason there are so many contemporary historical Jesus exegetes is basically because there are so few attestations and so many conflicting story lines in the NT. Talking, sometimes visible paranormals don't help the overall presentation.

There is a lot known about P another embellisher, agent and advertising guru of the life of the simple preacher man. He however never met Jesus. And one wonders about his motives. Was he out to save Judaism? To make a few bucks i.e. the first media evangelist? To be a powerful rabbi? Or a combination of all of these?? Paul's views about women and his prediction of the imminent second coming eliminate him as direct link to god and therefore his epistles were not god-inspired or inerrant.

CCnL:
I don't know why you make such a distinction between yourself and Spiderman2. You are both very aggressive in your anti-Catholic views. You just go about it a little differently. He thinks Catholics are deluded into following Satan. You think Catholics are deluded into following myths. Both of you seem to be trying to get Catholics to stop following the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He wants us to move to Evangelical Protestantism. You want us to swear off all religion and follow a God that was powerful enough to create the Big Bang but not powerful enough to effect anyone's life since then.

As for the Anti-Catholic creed you published earlier in this thread, I wan to rebut your basic Thesis, that Jesus was a good man but not divine.

1) In the gospels, Jesus clearly claims that he is divine. As you know, John's Gospel starts with that claim, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" and proceeds to have Jesus make that claim several time. Similarly, in the synoptics, he calls himself the Son of Man, an allusion to Daniel 7:13, which speaks to one coming on a cloud to gain eternal dominion,glory and kingship over all the people. He further idenified himself as he messiah to John the baptists desciples and as I AM, after walking on the water. So you can't beleive that Jesus was simply a good man. Good men don't claim to be God, when they are not. So, you either have to believe he's a liar or insane, or you have to believe that he is what he says he is.

2) Your continual attack on the validity of the New Testament (70% is embellishments, according to you)is not supported based on the data. First of all, there are 5 eyewitness accounts ( Mathew, mark, Luke, john, and Paul in 1Corinthians 15) that correspond very closely to each other but not so closely that they are direct copies. In fact, each has the slightly different points of view and expansion of different detail that you would expect in different vantages of the same historical events. These documents were all written between the early 50s and at the latest, the early 90s, so 20-60 years after the actual events. It is clear that anyone living now could easily remember the big events of 20 years ago (fall of the Berlin wall) and 60 years ago (the atomic bomb), so it is not unreasonable to expect someone who witnessed the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God to remember the details very accurately, with or without god's grace. The gospels are very specific about people whose lives were touched by Jesus, and because those people could have been interviewed by doubters at any time, this is consistent with a reliable account. In addition, the Gospels are generally reliable in reporting other historical facts. This would be consistent wih reliable documents.

3) The gospel message was adopted and propogated by known skeptics like Saul of Tarsus who would have no motivation to do so (to the point of being executed) if they didn't believe the story they were telling.

Anon, Anon, Anon,

Truth, Reality and History are not forms of anti-Catholicism. Hopefully you know the difference.

Some Truth, Reality and History:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. www. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Some anti-Catholicism as spewed by one Spiderman2:

"That is exactly why I believe that Catholicism is of the devil because of it's Catechism. Only the Bible is the inspired word of God and only those who possess the Holy Spirit of God understands it. We get our doctrine directly from God and not from some man-made catechism.

Catholicism believes they can add to the Bible that is why they have catechism. That is where the impurity comes in.

On Judgment Day, a lot of people will be surprised. They have no clue that they worshiped the devil. "

Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care. A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women, the idea of Catholic misogyny, is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes. It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.

More details

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

By Philip Jenkins

Published by Oxford University Press US, 2003
ISBN 0195154800, 9780195154801
258 pages

I read Arroyo's story with interest. I read the responses with interest (much more polite than usual). Than they got to post-modernism, and I recalled learning formal modernist art critisism, and just after getting degree the new prof.s some in teaching post modernist art critisism, and after learning all about THAT I recently realized is that you'll like what you like and maybe some of these "isms" are created by people trying to justify their acedemic careers.
Trying to keep up with all the theology talk is way over my pay grade, to quote our next President, so I leave it to my betters to sort it out.
In the mean time, lets just all be nice, always tell the truth, and treat people how you'd like to see your kid or your cat treated.
Happy Labor day

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo,

Firstly, I want to address your brief phrase, "my fellow theologians." Theologians typically have a PhD in theology, or a ThD, or a DD. Having read brief biographies of you available on line, I see that you are credentialed in sociology, and have written extensively on the sociology of religion. I still wonder though, and hope you will finally answer, upon what basis you consider yourself a theologian. Now, please don't play shy or coy, you once devoted a whole blog post just to rebutting what you considered a personal attack on your character. The present question involves your character as well, because as far as I can tell, you have taken for yourself a title that is not yours and misleads others about your qualifications. Please, Professor, if you are going to insist upon calling yourself a theologian, do answer how you justify such consideration.

My second point, and more germane to the substance of your post, is that the Vatican involved itself in decade-long written dialog with Fr. Haight, in which he became first, progressively more arrogant in responses, and then unresponsive to questions at all. The Vatican has made available the written exchange. In the face of this obstinance, the Church's hierarchs can hardly become impassive. Are the sherperds to abandon the sheep and their faith to wolves, for fear of being labeled "anti-intellectual" by arrogant prigs?

My third point is that this topic is also a bit dated. I think that perhaps you are digging to stir up controversy.

The physical resurrection of Jesus as per current graduate theology classes at many large Catholic universities-

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Jesus' and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven, therefore, did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Jesus' male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus for added details.

What remains to be determined is why Catholic America in this essay is writing about an anti-Christian take by a Catholic priest in the first place, and is putting the Vatican in a bad light for trying to curtail a priest who would teach his anti-Christian take to would-be Catholic priests.

Lay people need real religion from priests, not some intellectual gymnastics that would rob them of their faith in the religion. Lay people do not need priests at all, if priests offer no religion.

Those who consider Jesus Christ to be only a good man, born naturally to Mary and Jesus, (even the Quran admits of His Virgin birth!) who was not Resurrected, should NOT call themselves Christians.

The fundament of Christianity rests on the Divinity of Jesus, His atoning sacrifice on the cross for all mankind who accept Him as Saviour, and His Resurrection.

Distorting the fundamentals of the faith of the religion may be an interesting intellectual exercise for a theologian, but it should not be allowed to uproot the foundation of the religion itself and leave ordinary believers confused and rob them of the religion itself.

CCNL, that is right, set up a new "religion" so that ordinary folks who call themselves Christians are not confused and all the intellectual elites like you can form a separate community and a separate "religion."

Here a suggestion: Humanistic society based on the teachings of Jesus, believed to be only a good man.

CCNL, your "creed" can be said about Socrates and thousands of other good men who walked the face of this earth.

Will you do all Christians a favor and call your "creed" by a different name to Christianity?

Paul C, Paul C, Paul C,

The New Apostles' Creed After Proper Historical and Archeological Analyses:

I believe in a Singularity, Creator of the Big Bang.

And in Jesus born to Mary and Joseph.

He lived and preached a fulfillment of the good ways and sayings of the ancients.

By so doing, he offended the religious and political elite and therefore was tortured, crucified, died and was buried.

His Soul resides in the spirit world (Heaven?) along with the souls/spirits of all good persons so departed.

Alleluia!!!!!!

Dr. Steven- Arroyo,
CCNL / JD Crossan made my point much more convincingly than I did. I am sure you would recognize Crossan as one of your intellectuals- PHD, Former priest, author of dozens of books. Yet you can see through CCNL's constant diatribes that he opposes the entire apostle's creed. Do you not see that if the Catholic Church didn't make it clear to its following that Crossan was in error and not teaching the Catholic faith, that there would be others like CCNL that could be mislead. Anon clearly pointed out that your Father Roger made similar claims that were antidogmatic and in error. He refused to change his position when this was pointed out, so now he is no longer considered a Catholic teacher.

Dr. Stevens-Arroyo, watch where you are on this slipperly slope. When you position yourself as a Catholic theologian, writing Catholic America for a well known web site and then use that position to further the positions of those already sanctioned by the Church, you mislead the faithful. If you continue on this path and fail to head the warnings of the Church faithful, you can not continue to call yourself Catholic.

A good rule of historical thumb is that the Vatican is almost always wrong when first confronting ideas or trends. I'm not much on post-modernism, though. There are some insights in it (from what I can tell), but it appears to have long since turned into something of an academic joke (and just as ossified as Vatican doctrine).

yaaaaawwn

CCNL, you are NOT a Christian, leave alone a Catholic.

Arroyo is the TRUE anti-intellectual - with his constant and ideologically/partisan driven support of abortion and Barack Obama.

You do NOT speak for Catholic America, Arroyo; you only speak for your personal pride and moral relativism.

WAPO and Newsweek are anti Catholic rags and this is the reason they keep "catholics" like Arroyo around to parrot their politics...

Typical Vatican "theology talk" to CYAP the simple fact that Jesus was not the Son of God.

Hmmm, let us see what some of the experts (NT, historical Jesus exegetes and at least three members of the On Faith panel) have to say about the "Son of God/the Father references):

Matt 7:21 - not said by the historical Jesus, see wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/111_Invocation_without_Obedience for Professor Crossan's rating and also those of the Jesus Seminarians.

Matt 9:6 Passage notes "Son of Man" not Son of God. wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/127_Sickness_and_Sin

Matt 10:32-33,

"Ludemann [Jesus, 344] states " this is a prophetic admonition from the post-Easter community. For it, Jesus and the Son of man were 'identical in the future: Jesus will return in the near future as the Son of man with the clouds of heaven. In his earthly life he was not yet the Son of man, since he will come to judgment only with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7.13f) at the end of days' (Haenchen)."

Matt 11:25-27 wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/045_Father_and_Son and

wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/066_Wise_and_Understanding

"Lüdemann [Jesus, 330f] invokes the classic description from K. Hase of this passage as a "thunderbolt from the Johannine heavens." He notes the typically Johannine reference to mutual knowledge between Father and Son, and the absolute use of "Son" as a designation for Jesus. In dismissing the saying's authenticity, Luedemann also notes the similarity to ideas in the post-Easter commissioning scene at Matt 28:18, "All authority has been given to me ..."

In reality, with the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate, simple preacher man, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/"Vaticanism"????

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

Theological method

The pre-existence of the Word

The divinity of Jesus

The Holy Trinity

The salvific value of the death of Jesus

The unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church

The resurrection of Jesus

With fundamental difference in the way the above aspects of the Christian faith has been presented in his book, does Father Roger Haight S.J. not misrepresent the very basis of the religion he supposedly represents? It is okay for him to teach anything as an academic, but not as a Catholic priest when his academic interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Christianity, leave alone Catholicism.

Vatican link provided in previous post ---

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Notification on the book
"Jesus Symbol of God"
by Father Roger Haight S.J.

Introduction

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after careful study, has judged that the book Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), by Father Roger Haight S.J., contains serious doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith. It was therefore decided to publish this Notification in its regard, which concludes the relevant procedure for doctrinal examination.

After an initial evaluation by experts, it was decided to entrust the matter directly to the Author’s Ordinary. On February 14, 2000, a series of Observations was sent to Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, General Superior of the Society of Jesus, with the request that he bring the errors in the book to the Author’s attention, asking him to submit the necessary clarifications and corrections to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. II).

The response of Father Roger Haight S.J., submitted on June 28, 2000, failed to either clarify or correct the errors brought to his attention. For this reason, and in light of the book’s considerable circulation, it was decided to proceed with a doctrinal examination (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. III), with particular attention given to the Author’s theological method.

After an examination by the theological Consultors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ordinary Session of February 13, 2002, confirmed that Jesus Symbol of God contains erroneous assertions, the dissemination of which is of grave harm to the faithful. It was decided therefore to follow the procedure for an “examination in cases of urgency”( cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. IV).

In this regard, in accordance with Art. 26 of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, on July 22, 2002, the General Superior of the Society of Jesus was sent a list of the book’s erroneous positions and a general evaluation of its hermeneutical approach, asking him to request that Father Roger Haight S.J. submit, within two canonical months, a clarification of his methodological approach and a correction, faithful to the teachings of the Church, of the errors contained in his book.

The Author’s reply, submitted on March 31, 2003, was examined by the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on October 8, 2003. The literary form of this reply was such as to raise doubts about its authenticity, that is, if it was truly the personal response of Father Roger Haight S.J.; he was therefore asked to submit a signed response.

A signed response was submitted on January 7, 2004. The Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on May 5, 2004, examined this response and reaffirmed the fact that the book Jesus Symbol of God contains statements contrary to truths of divine and catholic faith that pertain to the first paragraph of the Professio fidei, concerning the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the resurrection of Jesus. The negative critique included also the use of an inappropriate theological method. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a Notification on the matter.

I. Theological method

In the Preface of his book Jesus Symbol of God, the Author explains that today theology must be done in dialogue with the postmodern world, but it also “must remain faithful to its originating revelation and consistent tradition” (p. xii), in the sense that the data of the faith constitute the norm and criteria for a theological hermeneutic. He also asserts that it is necessary to establish a “critical correlation” (cf. pp. 40-47) between these data and the modes and qualities of postmodern thought, characterized in part by a radical historical and pluralistic consciousness (cf. pp. 24, 330-334): “The tradition must be critically received into the present situation” (p. 46).

This “critical correlation”, however, results, in fact, in a subordination of the content of faith to its plausibility and intelligibility in postmodern culture (cf. pp. 49-50, 127, 195, 241, 273-274, 278-282, 330-334). It is stated, for example, that because of the contemporary pluralistic consciousness, “one can no longer claim [...] Christianity as the superior religion, or Christ as the absolute center to which all other historical mediations are relative. [...] It is impossible in postmodern culture to think [...] that one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn” (p. 333).

With particular regard to the validity of dogmatic, especially christological formulations in a postmodern cultural and linguistic context, which is different from the one in which they were composed, the Author states that these formulations should not be ignored, but neither should they be uncritically repeated, “because they do not have the same meaning in our culture as they did when they were formulated [...]. Therefore, one has no choice but to engage the classical councils and to explicitly interpret them for our own period” (p. 16). This interpretation, however, does not in fact result in doctrinal proposals that convey the immutable meaning of the dogmas as understood by the faith of the Church, nor does it clarify their meaning, enhancing understanding. The Author’s interpretation results instead in a reading that is not only different from but also contrary to the true meaning of the dogmas.

With specific reference to christology, the Author states that, in order to transcend a “naive revelational positivism” (p. 173, n. 65), it should be set within the context of a “general theory of religion in terms of religious epistemology” (p. 188). A fundamental element of this theory is the symbol as a concrete historical medium: a created reality (for example, a person, an object, or an event) that makes known and present another reality, such as the transcendent reality of God, which is at the same time part of and distinct from the medium itself, and to which the medium points (cf. pp. 196-198). Symbolic language, which is structurally poetic, imaginative and figurative (cf. pp. 177, 256), expresses and produces a certain experience of God (cf. p. 11), but does not provide objective information about God himself (cf. pp. 9, 210, 282, 471).

These methodological positions lead to a seriously reductive and misleading interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, resulting in erroneous propositions. In particular, the epistemological choice of the theory of symbol, as it is understood by the Author, undermines the basis of christological dogma, which from the New Testament onwards proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Person of the divine Son/Word who became man.[1]

II. The pre-existence of the Word

In accord with his hermeneutical approach, the Author does not accept that there is a basis for the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Word in the New Testament, not even in the prologue of the Gospel of St. John (cf. pp. 155-178), where, he asserts, the Logos is to be understood in a purely metaphorical sense (cf. p. 177). Moreover, he regards the pronouncements of the Council of Nicaea as intending only to assert that “no less than God was and is present and at work in Jesus” (p. 284; cf. p. 438), maintaining that recourse to the symbol “Logos” is to be understood simply as taken for granted,[2] and therefore not the object of the definition, nor plausible in a postmodern culture (cf. pp. 281, 485). The Council of Nicaea, states the Author, “employs scripture in a way that is not acceptable today”, that is, as providing “a source of directly representative information, like facts or objective data, about transcendent reality” (p. 279). The dogma of Nicaea does not teach, therefore, that the eternally pre-existent Son or Logos is consubstantial with and eternally begotten of the Father. The Author proposes “an incarnational christology in which the created human being or person Jesus of Nazareth is the concrete symbol expressing the presence in history of God as Logos” (p. 439).

This interpretation is not in accord with the dogma of Nicaea, which intentionally affirms, even contrary to the cultural vision of the time, the true pre-existence of the Son/Logos of the Father, who became man, in time, for the salvation of humanity.[3]

III. The divinity of Jesus

The Author’s erroneous position on the pre-existence of the Son/Logos of God is consistent with his likewise erroneous understanding of the doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. It is true that he uses expressions such as “Jesus must be considered divine” (p. 283) and “Jesus Christ [...] must be true God” (p. 284). These statements must be understood however in light of his assertions regarding Jesus as a symbolic medium: Jesus is “a finite person” (p. 205), “a human person” (p. 296), “a human being like us” (p. 205; cf. p. 428). The formula “true man and true God” is therefore reinterpreted by the Author in the sense that “true man” means that Jesus is “a human being like all others” (p. 295), “a finite human being and creature” (p. 262); whereas “true God” means that the man Jesus, as a concrete symbol, is or mediates the saving presence of God in history (cf. pp. 262, 295): only in this sense is Jesus to be considered as “truly divine or consubstantial with the God” (p. 295). The “postmodern situation in christology”, says the Author, “entails a change of viewpoint that leaves the Chalcedonian problematic behind” (p. 290), precisely in the sense that the hypostatic union, or “enhypostatic” union, would be understood as “the union of no less than God as Word with the human person Jesus” (p. 442).

This interpretation of the divinity of Jesus is contrary to the faith of the Church that believes in Jesus Christ, eternal Son of God, who became man, as has been proclaimed repeatedly in various ecumenical councils and in the constant preaching of the Church.[4]

IV. The Holy Trinity

Coherent with his interpretation of the identity of Jesus Christ, the Author develops an erroneous Trinitarian doctrine. In his judgment the “later doctrines of an immanent Trinity [should] not be allowed to be read into New Testament teaching” (p. 474). These are to be considered as the outcome of a subsequent inculturation, which led to the hypostatization of the symbols “Logos” and “Spirit”, that is to say, to considering them as “real entities” in God (cf. p. 481). As “religious symbols”, “Logos” and “Spirit” represent two different historical, salvific mediations of the one God: one external, historical, in and through the symbol Jesus; the other internal, dynamic, accomplished by God’s communication of self as Spirit (cf. p. 484). Such a view, which corresponds to the general theory of religious experience, leads the Author to abandon a correct understanding of the Trinity itself “that construes it as a description of a differentiated inner life of God” (p. 484). Consequently, he asserts that “notions of God as a community, ideas of hypostatizing the differentiations within God and calling them persons in such a way that they are in dialogical intercommunication with each other, militate against the first point of the doctrine itself” (p. 483), that is, “that God is single and one” (p. 482).

This interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous and contrary to the faith regarding the oneness of God in the Trinity of Persons that the Church has proclaimed and confirmed in numerous and authoritative documents.[5]

V. The salvific value of the death of Jesus

In the book Jesus Symbol of God the Author asserts that “the prophetic interpretation” explains best the death of Jesus (cf. p. 86, n. 105). He also states that it is not necessary “that Jesus thought of himself as universal savior” (p. 211), and that the idea of the death of Jesus as “a sacrificial death, an atoning death, a redeeming death” is merely the result of a gradual interpretation by his followers in light of the Old Testament (cf. p. 85). It is also asserted that the traditional ecclesiastical language “of Jesus suffering for us, of being a sacrifice to God, of absorbing punishment for sin in our place, of being required to die to render satisfaction to God, hardly communicates meaningfully to our age” (p. 241). Such language is to be abandoned because “the images associated with this talk offend and even repulse postmodern sensibility and thereby form a barrier to a salutary appreciation of Jesus Christ” (p. 241).

The Author’s position is in reality contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which has always held that Jesus intended his death to be for the sake of universal redemption. The Church sees in the New Testament references to salvation, in particular the words of the institution of the Eucharist, a norm of faith regarding the universal salvific value of the sacrifice of the Cross.[6]

VI. The unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church

With regard to the universality of the salvific mission of Jesus, the Author states that Jesus is “normative” for Christians, but “non-constitutive” for other religious mediations (cf. p. 403). Moreover, he asserts that “God alone effects salvation and Jesus’ universal mediation is not necessary” (p. 405); indeed, “God acts in the lives of human beings in a plurality of ways outside of Jesus and the Christian sphere” (p. 412). The Author insists on the necessity of moving beyond christocentrism to theocentrism, which “cuts the necessity of binding God’s salvation to Jesus of Nazareth alone” (p. 417). With regard to the universal mission of the Church, he maintains that is necessary to have “the ability to recognize other religions as mediators of God’s salvation on a par with Christianity” (p. 415). Moreover, for the Author it “is impossible in postmodern culture to think that [...] one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn. These myths or metanarratives are simply gone” (p. 333).

This theological position fundamentally denies the universal salvific mission of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; 1 Tim 2:4-6; Jn 14:6) and, as a consequence, the mission of the Church to announce and communicate the gift of Christ the Saviour to all humanity (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Eph 3:8-11), both of which are given clear witness in the New Testament and have always been proclaimed as the faith of the Church, even in recent documents.[7]

VII. The resurrection of Jesus

The Author’s presentation of the resurrection of Jesus is guided by his understanding of theological and biblical language as “symbolic of experience that is historically mediated” (p.131), as well as by the principle that “one should ordinarily not expect to have happened in the past what is presumed or proven impossible today” (p.127). Understood in this way, the resurrection is described as the affirmation that “Jesus is ontologically alive as an individual within the sphere of God [...], God’s declaration that Jesus’ life is a true revelation of God and an authentic human existence” (p. 151; cf. p. 124); it is a “transcendent reality that can only be appreciated by faith-hope” (p. 126). The disciples, after the death of Jesus, remembered and reflected upon his life and message, in particular his revelation of God as good, loving, concerned about human existence, and saving. This remembering – that “what God begins in love, because of the complete boundlessness of that love, continues to exist in that love, thus overcoming the power and finality of death” (p. 147) – coupled with an initiative of God as Spirit, gradually gave birth to this new belief in the resurrection, that is, that Jesus was alive and exalted within God’s saving power (cf. 146). Moreover, according to the Author’s interpretation, “the historicity of the empty tomb and appearance narratives is not essential to resurrection faith-hope” (p. 147, n. 54; cf. pp. 124, 134). Rather, these stories “are ways of expressing and teaching the content of a faith already formed” (p. 145).

The Author’s interpretation leads to a position which is incompatible with the Church’s doctrine. It is advanced on the basis of erroneous assumptions, and not on the witness of the New Testament, according to which the appearances of the Risen Lord and the empty tomb are the foundation of the faith of the disciples in the resurrection of Christ, and not vice versa.

Conclusion

In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight S.J. are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such time as his positions are corrected to be in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 13, 2004, the Memorial of Saint Lucy, Virgin and Martyr.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

[1] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302; Concilium Costantinopolitanum II, Canones: DH 424, 426.

[2] The Author speaks of the “hypostatization” and of the “hypostasis” of the Logos and of the Spirit, which he understands as referring to how, in the language of the hellenistic Church, these two biblical metaphors had subsequently become real entities (cf. p. 475).

[3] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125. The Nicene confession, confirmed at other ecumenical councils (cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302), constitutes the foundation of the professions of faith of all the different Christian denominations.

[4] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302.

[5] Cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Quicumque: DH 75; Synodus Toletana XI, Professio fidei: DH 525-532; Synodus Toletana XVI, Professio fidei: DH 568-573; Concilium Lateranense IV, Professio fidei: DH 803-805; Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro Iacobitis: DH 1330-1331; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 2-4.

[6] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Tridentinum, Decretum de iustificatione: DH 1522, 1523; De poenitentia: DH 1690; De Sacrificio Missae: DH 1740; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 3, 5, 9; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et spes, n. 22; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 12.

[7] Cf. Innocentius XI, Const. Cum occasione, n. 5: DH 2005; Sanctum Officium, Decr. Errores Iansenistarum, n. 4: DH 2304; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 8; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et spes, n. 22 ; Decr. Ad gentes, n. 3 ; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Redemptoris missio, nn. 4-6; Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Decl. Dominus Iesus, nn. 13-15. With regard to the universality of the mission of the Church, cf. Lumen gentium, nn. 13, 17; Ad gentes, n. 7; Redemptoris missio, nn. 9-11; Dominus Iesus, nn. 20-22.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after careful study, has judged that the book Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), by Father Roger Haight S.J., contains serious doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith. It was therefore decided to publish this Notification in its regard, which concludes the relevant procedure for doctrinal examination...

The Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on May 5, 2004, examined the response of the Author and reaffirmed the fact that the book Jesus Symbol of God contains statements contrary to truths of divine and catholic faith that pertain to the first paragraph of the Professio fidei, concerning the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the resurrection of Jesus. The negative critique included also the use of an inappropriate theological method. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a Notification on the matter...

Conclusion

In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight S.J. are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such time as his positions are corrected to be in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20041213_notification-fr-haight_en.html

Paul, Paul, Paul,

The material is a lot newer than yours and historically and realistically significantly better.

CCNL:
You need some new material....

For Paul C and Anthony Stephen-Arroyo's eyes only:

The title of the book speaks volumes, i.e. "Jesus, Symbol of God" i.e. Jesus was not the Son of God i.e. there is no trinity i.e. it continues to validate the following:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. www. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew peasants" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Prof. S-A,
you are often critical of the Vatican in your posts. Do you really know why the Vatican prohibited Father Roger from teaching in Catholic Universities? Could it be that he was indeed teaching something inconsistent with the faith while pretending that it was orthodox, thus deceiving his students? Could it also be that he was told by his superiors that his position was in error and that he refused to recant, thus forcing their hand? I don't know the answers to these questions, do You? Also, if I read you correctly, this happened 3 years ago. Why this article now?

Honestly, this is the second or third time in a month that you have written a Catholic America article critical of the way the Vatican or Church Heirarchy in general reacts to Catholic "intellectuals" who deviate from the teaching of the church. Do you believe that the Church heirarchy should not police its members who are speaking on its behalf? If they don't, won't we have lost the core teaching of the church incrementally to those that have different ideas? There are lots of Christians who think they know Christ better than the Church hierarchy. They usually call themselves Protestants.

Don't get me wrong. Its totally okay to ask and search and try to find God for yourself. Where the line is drawn is where you deviate from the Faith while describing yourself a Catholic, thus bringing others away from the faith. Sometimes this can happen through misunderstanding. But if you are corrected by the appropriate authority and you choose to disregard that authority and persist in misleading people into believing that your position is the Catholic position, then the Church must take action to clarify and preserve the official doctrine and dogmas. That action can and should be sanctions, loss of position and ultimately excommunication if the person in question does not recant.

Not long ago, I read a biography of Padre Pio. Early in his career, he was probably wrongly sanctioned by the Church and sent off to a remote monastery, with limited access to people. He accepted this obediently as God's will and ultimately was vindicated and of course, recently declared a Saint. So, of course the church isn't perfect, but if you react with obedience and humility as Padre Pio did, things will work out (by the Grace of God). By the way, this is true of life in general, not just in dealings with the Catholic hierarchy..