Jesus Christ, the Holy One of God

Rating:
Summary: Lofty Goals Unfulfilled in Cantalamessa's "Holy One of God"
Review: Father Cantalamessa describes his approach to the person of Jesus as "dogmatic" in that he analyzes the person of Jesus based on "fundamental truths" as determined by his understanding of "Tradition in harmony with the mind of the Church" regarding the teachings of Ecumenical Councils. He acknowledges that dogmas are "open structures," but asserts there is a "certain and incontrovertible datum" that Christ was God and man at the same time in the same person. In a similar vein, he cites Kierkegaard to the effect that the dogmatic terminology of the primitive church is "locked in slumber" and waits only to be awakened, and he proposes that Christ be released from the "shackles of ecclesiatical dogmatism". But he rejects all proposals of others as inconsistent with dogma. I found him rigid, scripturally inaccurate and concerned more with showing "errors" of others than following his own recommendation to explore new articulations and understandings of Christological truths. In discussing the humanity of "Christ" he equates the holiness of Jesus with the absence of sin. This is based on the ontology of the hypostatic union. He asserts that "to say that he [Christ] could have sinned is like saying God himself could sin, which is the absurdity of absurdities." I found this an unduly restricted understanding that calls into question the complete humanity of Jesus. It is one thing to say that Jesus never sinned in fact and was therefore not a sinner, but the potential to commit sin (to assert one's will in a manner that is not in conformity with God's will) is a part of human nature. If Jesus was fully human, the potential to commit sin was part of his nature just as free will was part of his nature. Rather than dismiss this proposition out of hand, one might explore whether Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God could (in theory) have sinned when he was enfleshed (for example, by despairing of his own connectedness to the Father). Jesus did not sin because he came to know the will of the Father through prayer and he intentionally aligned his will with that of the Father. Although Cantalamessa later acknowledges that Jesus' "subjective holiness" was achieved by his perfect agreement to the Father's will, he does not apply this insight to his discussion of the absence of sin in Jesus. In one of the better expositions in the book, Cantalamessa recounts that the early Christian belief was that the divinity and the humanity of Jesus were reflected by two times or phases (before the Resurrection and after) rather than in a doctrine of two natures or substances. The Apostolic Fathers changed the description of Jesus' divinity so that he was no longer seen as becoming God through the Resurrection, but instead posited that God become man in the Incarnation. The Prologue to the Gospel of John was adopted by the Church and codified at the Council of Chalcedon. Cantalamessa acknowledges that this shift resulted from the inculturation of the faith into the Hellenist culture. He hastens to deny, however, that the Church "deserted the Bible to run after the Greeks" and cites Paul and John's writings to support this view. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that both Paul and John were men of their times who were influenced by Hellenist thought in choosing their concepts and language. In another context, however, he accepts the proposition that "Paul, John and the Fathers became Greeks with the Greeks." In the final chapter, Cantalamessa maintains his dogmatic view of the fixed datum of faith in spite of his expressed desire to find different ways of expressing religious truths. Dogmas are theses, rather than hypotheses, and are fixed and irremovable yardsticks that require him to reject "reductionist" proposals. He claims a duty to denounce the "unjustified pretensions" of Hans Kung because a theologian should be measured against Tradition, the Magisterium and the actual body of believers. (This reasoning is circular, of course, because the Magisterium determines the meaning of Tradition and the content of "the faith"). Notwithstanding the loftiness of his stated goals, the contradictions and the rigidity of Cantalamessa's positions prevent Jesus Christ: the Holy One of God from advancing his goals or "opening the structures" of Christological dogmas.

Rating:
Summary: Lofty Goals Unfulfilled in Cantalamessa's "Holy One of God"
Review: Father Cantalamessa describes his approach to the person of Jesus as "dogmatic" in that he analyzes the person of Jesus based on "fundamental truths" as determined by his understanding of "Tradition in harmony with the mind of the Church" regarding the teachings of Ecumenical Councils. He acknowledges that dogmas are "open structures," but asserts there is a "certain and incontrovertible datum" that Christ was God and man at the same time in the same person. In a similar vein, he cites Kierkegaard to the effect that the dogmatic terminology of the primitive church is "locked in slumber" and waits only to be awakened, and he proposes that Christ be released from the "shackles of ecclesiatical dogmatism". But he rejects all proposals of others as inconsistent with dogma. I found him rigid, scripturally inaccurate and concerned more with showing "errors" of others than following his own recommendation to explore new articulations and understandings of Christological truths. In discussing the humanity of "Christ" he equates the holiness of Jesus with the absence of sin. This is based on the ontology of the hypostatic union. He asserts that "to say that he [Christ] could have sinned is like saying God himself could sin, which is the absurdity of absurdities." I found this an unduly restricted understanding that calls into question the complete humanity of Jesus. It is one thing to say that Jesus never sinned in fact and was therefore not a sinner, but the potential to commit sin (to assert one's will in a manner that is not in conformity with God's will) is a part of human nature. If Jesus was fully human, the potential to commit sin was part of his nature just as free will was part of his nature. Rather than dismiss this proposition out of hand, one might explore whether Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God could (in theory) have sinned when he was enfleshed (for example, by despairing of his own connectedness to the Father). Jesus did not sin because he came to know the will of the Father through prayer and he intentionally aligned his will with that of the Father. Although Cantalamessa later acknowledges that Jesus' "subjective holiness" was achieved by his perfect agreement to the Father's will, he does not apply this insight to his discussion of the absence of sin in Jesus. In one of the better expositions in the book, Cantalamessa recounts that the early Christian belief was that the divinity and the humanity of Jesus were reflected by two times or phases (before the Resurrection and after) rather than in a doctrine of two natures or substances. The Apostolic Fathers changed the description of Jesus' divinity so that he was no longer seen as becoming God through the Resurrection, but instead posited that God become man in the Incarnation. The Prologue to the Gospel of John was adopted by the Church and codified at the Council of Chalcedon. Cantalamessa acknowledges that this shift resulted from the inculturation of the faith into the Hellenist culture. He hastens to deny, however, that the Church "deserted the Bible to run after the Greeks" and cites Paul and John's writings to support this view. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that both Paul and John were men of their times who were influenced by Hellenist thought in choosing their concepts and language. In another context, however, he accepts the proposition that "Paul, John and the Fathers became Greeks with the Greeks." In the final chapter, Cantalamessa maintains his dogmatic view of the fixed datum of faith in spite of his expressed desire to find different ways of expressing religious truths. Dogmas are theses, rather than hypotheses, and are fixed and irremovable yardsticks that require him to reject "reductionist" proposals. He claims a duty to denounce the "unjustified pretensions" of Hans Kung because a theologian should be measured against Tradition, the Magisterium and the actual body of believers. (This reasoning is circular, of course, because the Magisterium determines the meaning of Tradition and the content of "the faith"). Notwithstanding the loftiness of his stated goals, the contradictions and the rigidity of Cantalamessa's positions prevent Jesus Christ: the Holy One of God from advancing his goals or "opening the structures" of Christological dogmas.