- New -

Gnoseology Theological WALTER KASPER, THAT OF THESE TIMES YOU DILETTA EVEN TO GIVE TO THE GNOSTIC

.

Following the Hegelian dialectic, Walter Kasper has moved away from Christianity even more of Luther, because Luther, at least, had seen, albeit clumsily, the risks of a superb reason and, albeit so arrogant, the fundamental importance of obeying the Word of God, while the Hegelian dialectic turns God into a syllogism and dissolves the Mystery in the development of history.

.

.

PDF format Print article

.

.

The way we think about moral action and our own moral conduct depends on our conception of reality and how we conceive the knowledge of reality, that is, from our "epistemology". This applies to everyone, and therefore also applies to the famous theologian Walter Kasper. In this essay we will see how it works in him this report.

.

For many decades, Cardinal Walter Kasper, as the guide of the ecumenical activities of the Church, It carries out a way of doing ecumenism, that does not close the separated brethren to full communion with the Church, but instead it leaves them in their errors and their separateness, as if this condition was not a fault to be repaired, but simply the sign of a way of being a Christian different from the Catholic and equally legitimate, indeed complementary.

.

But it has happened and it happens that not only Protestants do not convert to Catholicism, but many Catholics, attracted by Luther's errors, and since we are no longer correct as before, and the cessation Catholic work to convert the Protestants, It got the idea that the Church has corrected his judgment on Luther, and he found that he was right, or at least his way of conceiving Christianity may be subject to optional choice for Catholics. So these Catholics feel empowered to choose at least some of Luther's positions, in the belief that they can continue to say Catholics, or perhaps they think they can be considered "progressives" and "advanced". But the more subtle pitfall is the fact that some of Luther's errors are presented as Catholic truth, so many unsuspecting and gullible fall for Catholics. And they drink the poison without realizing. One of the most skilled players of this massive fraud is Karl Rahner.

.

Now we need to find a way out of this situation, because the Catholic faith is fading, while it is increasing the influence of Luther. It should therefore be that the Supreme Pontiff latches this interpretation modernistic ecumenism and promotes the implementation of authentic ecumenism, as per the true teaching of the Council.

.

The relationship between metaphysics and the doctrine of the Church

.

In the theology of Walter Kasper, as in any theological system, all it is resulting from the consequential cohesion of the parts connected to each other: if it undermines the foundation, everything else collapses, like the statue of Daniel's vision [Dn 2, 21-31]. Everything starts from the knowledge. If this is healthy, everything else holds; otherwise everything collapses. We dedicate this paper to its then gnoseology, no mancar to show the truth of this assumption. We say that it is false to say that "the Church does not advocate a particular metaphysics" [1], however since it is recommended for ages that of St. Thomas Aquinas. But it does so on the basis of the belief that metaphysics is some science, perennial, incontrovertible, objective and universal, important to know, unfading fruit of human reason as such, suitable for all people and all cultures, in every time and place.

.

The Church does not believe in a metaphysical date, but in metaphysics as such, as it does not promote the reason of Tom or Dick, but human reason as such, of any human, at all times and in all places. For this, in its educational institutions, cultural and academic, The Church promotes the metaphysical and epistemological in his prime in his stride, wanting free from errors and defects, in the discussion of freedom, research and teaching. It knows that there are different forms, systems or metaphysical thought horizons, some valid, it admits in its schools, especially the system of St. Thomas, but then also to, eg, St. Augustine or St. Anselm and St. Bonaventure, or Alexander of Hales and of Blessed Duns Scotus or Francis Suarez; While other, instead, dangerous, it looks at them with suspicion or reserve, as for example that of Scotus Eriugena or William of Ockham or Cusanus or Ficino, or Campanella or Descartes or Leibniz or Wolff or Blessed Antonio Rosmini, though veneri the sanctity of the latter. Other systems it definitely rejects them, although in its majesty, urge theologians to recover what they can be valid. They are the doctrines that are at odds with the realism of sound reason, and thus contrast with the faith, such as the ideas of Giordano Bruno or Spinoza or Kant or Fichte, or Schelling or Hegel or Heidegger or Gentile or Severino or Rahner.

.

As for heretics, The Church, when he condemns errors, He asks theologians to highlight in them what remained of the common heritage of faith, in the hope that they will correct you and want to meet Church. With all men, believers and non-believers, the Church communicates on the basis of natural reason, in order to introduce them, If possible, the mystery of Christ. However, there are several different metaphysical or, just as there are different opinions or different. Indeed, we repeat, metaphysics is a science and not an opinion, as well as, for instance, They are not opinions geometry, physics, botany, geography a l'anatomy.

.

The Church recommends the use of metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas

.

The Church, therefore, between the different metaphysical produced in the past, as a result of appearance of theological accommodation of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, He has chosen and has certainly preferred a metaphysical date, precisely that of St. Thomas [2], but not as he had chosen opinion among other questionable doctrines or deciduous. This of course does not mean that the metaphysics of Thomas is defect or not improvable, or can not sorgerne a better future [3]. This preference of the Church is motivated by the excellent manner in which St. Thomas knows how to motivate the harmony between reason and faith [4], in order to the elaboration of a apologetica, a rational theology and natural ethics, and the interpretation of Scripture and the formulation and explanation of the dogma.

.

Before the appearance of St. Thomas, the Church gave eagerness certainly that Scripture had annotated and interpreted using healthy and rational philosophical concepts, while the dogmas that had been previously defined, as for example the Christological dogma, They had been formulated with the use of metaphysical categories, duly adapted, derived from Greek philosophy, as indeed they had already made the Fathers of the Church and St. Augustine using the Platonic philosophy for the development of their theology.

.

But before St. Thomas no theologian had not risen who he had been able to organize such wisdom all the theological knowledge into a single rational system. This need began to be felt from the thirteenth century [5]. We had in fact noticed that the biblical teachings and dogmas that the Church had made from them, although they were scattered documents that had occurred over the course of centuries and although many of these documents had the object of reflective narration made the divine action in history - for example the transition from the Old to the New Covenant, the Incarnation and the Redemption, the founding and development of the Church -, however, they contained also the speculative truth, rationally connected to each other; universal truths, immutable and eternal, rational and revealed "Heaven and earth will pass; but my words shall not pass away " [Mt 24, 35], truths that relate especially to God, That, in its pure spirituality, immutability and eternity, Himself is beyond space and time, transcends history and evolution of the world, although, with the Incarnation of God's Son, God has united to Himself in Christ humanity a single unit of one Divine Person, and consequently, through this man Jesus, He has joined Self, "No confusion" and or without mutation ", as it deduced from the Christological dogma of Chalcedon, every man, the story, the time and the world.

.

For this, Vatican II He was able to say that "by his Incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man" [GS 22], rahneriano certainly not in the sense that all men are in grace, but as Christ offers everyone the possibility to join him and thus to save, as we know from the Gospel and dogmatic teachings concerning the condition for salvation. And 'what it says Christ: "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself " [GV 12,32]. But not all are attracted.

.

The Church is careful imposing to all the people of God, like its official doctrine, any theory, changing idea or choice, contingent or limited to the field of special or dell'opinabilità, it is a political trend, a current cultural or artistic work or worship or devotion or spirituality or way of living the faith and moral conduct. But it leaves it to all full freedom of choice. That, instead, on the authority that was conferred by Christ, It imposes absolutely to all believers, under penalty of eternal damnation, only what, Christ's command, It is universally necessary and obligatory for the salvation of all. But nobody prevents her from proposing even well-founded human doctrines and universally valid, connected with the truths of faith, in order to facilitate learning [catechesis] or to introduce them [apologetica] or draw conclusions or to facilitate the development dogmatic [speculative theology or morality] or to allow good comments to Scripture [biblical exegesis] or foster devotion and sanctity [spiritual theology].

.

In the name of this discretion, who it is also his duty, The Church especially recommended to pastors and theologians, St. Thomas [6], obviously not because its doctrine is necessary for salvation, but for the validity, the utility and the universality of his thinking in order for those purposes. For this, of Aquinas' doctrine, Pius XI said that the Church has made her, has stated that he. And Thomas was called by the Church A doctor of the Church.

.

The analogy entity according Kasper

.

Kasper thinks he can make a connection between analogy, dialectical and historical thinking. The idea is not bad; but unfortunately the result, as we shall see, it is disappointing. He says:

.

"The structure of ' “in-above” It is characteristic for both the analogy, both for forensics, both historical thinking. Now if we compare dialectic analogy, this does not mean that 'analogy of being both the 'form of Catholic thought' [7]. He can not and will not be given 'the form of Catholic thought' for the reason that the Church did not support a certain metaphysical. The Church must witness to the Gospel and certainly accomplishes this task using human language. It therefore needs, to this end, of philosophy as a critical-methodological reflection and as being human experience interpretation. Such thinking is still deeply historical " [8].

.

We observe that it is true that the analogy unites and connects the body immanent, mundane, entity transcendent, divine. But the immanence-transcendence ratio is very distinct in the case of the dialectic and history. dialectics, indeed, He does not know a transcendence, because it remains on the floor and uniqueness is limited opposition between being and non-being, between affirmation and negation. It remains on the mundane plane and opinions. To ascend to God, intellect do not need opposites to each other, besides all limited scope of appearances, such as dialectical, is because God, although transcendent, We are not opposed to the world, It is not the enemy of the world, but, on the contrary, It is in harmony with the world, It is in communion with it, having created him; and because, to explain worldly certainties, we need a foundation first and most certain and not fluctuating as dialectical. If the foundation falters, you will indeed?

.

To go up, therefore the world to God, we need a concept that, although it applies to the world, has the dual function of being a part in continuity with the notion of God and thus predicable of God; but on the other it is necessary that the notion or the level that reaches this concept is not too low and does not remain at the level of being worldly, in order to express the transcendence or the superiority of God over the world. Otherwise, instead of reaching God, we would only have an idol or a pagan god. In addition to, We must be sufficiently universal notion, that is applicable to all things, because God must explain the existence of the world. We must therefore use the broader concept and more universal that we possess. But this concept must also be sufficiently high, because it must not only explain the existence of material things, but also the spirit world. It is therefore necessary that it abstracts, trascendendole, from material things and then also from space, by time, from becoming and history, to consider the spirit, which it is immaterial and, although it can work in history, However touches reality and values ​​sovrastorici, immutable and incorruptible. The simple historical thinking is not enough to obtain or have a concept of God. For although no doubt God created the history and governments, and although He is incarnate in Jesus Christ, and lived among us, It remains in Himself immutable and above history and historical human nature of Christ is distinct from the divine nature.

.

Moreover, the aforesaid operation abstractive, as evidenced by the Cardinal Gaetano [9], It involves three degrees of overcoming of matter: physical, mathematical and metaphysical [10]. At the end of this operation, we hold the notion that has all the above requirements: analog notion, metaphysical and transcendental being as a body [even out even] and its properties transcendental [one, true, good, fair, res, something]. The thought of Gaetano is important in showing how the intellect proceeds in achieving metaphysical knowledge. This is an elevation of intellect, for which it, forming the entity metaphysical concept, It is able to build speculative theology, conceiving God as the First and Supreme Body. For this, remained famous exhortation of Gaetano: «Learn to lower the temper, and another order of things to come».

.

This is the best term to distinguish God and the world and, while, to move from world to God and God to the world. It is to be noted that here the intellectual movement has nothing to do with the 'tipping', which speaks Kasper, because this is not about to swing between yes and no, but to go from a lower yes yes to another supreme. Denying the possibility to use a single entity analogue concept to join God and the world, God and history, Kasper demonstrates a misunderstanding of or did not understand what l 'analogy of being, because, some, while the real body is manifold, the entity concept or analog is one [11] or nothing, although also both internally diversified, precisely to reflect the multiple reality entity. This lack of unity of transcendental being perceived Kasper explains some errors.

.

First, the rejection of systematic theology. He has in mind the rationalist systems and immanentistic idealistic and does good to refuse. But he is wrong in rejecting the system as such, it is rather an essential need of reason and science. Wise to order, as St. Thomas. And theology is a science and wisdom. And as such, theology is not a simple converging, meet and discuss among theologians; It is not a simple exchange of views; It is not simply a personal or joint search. These are certainly good things. But theology, as a service to the Magisterium of the Church and souls reception and introduction of the same Magisterium, It must have a school form, methodical, educational and training, particularly for the formation of the clergy. It is transmitted to the disciples notions already acquired, certain and definitive, useful to the ministry and to the life of piety, based on the dogma, Scripture and Tradition.

.

The problem for the building of a systematic theology It is based on what principle or from which. The error of the idealists was not what we wanted to build a unified system, Deductive and universal. The mistake was to be based on cogito Cartesian, instead ENTITY. And systematic theology is precisely founded on God as Being first and highest, as The very being of self-subsistent,.

.

This explains this statement by Kasper:

.

"Theology must remain anchored to the foolishness of preaching, open and not closed to dialogue, which here it becomes the reference opening and the temporary nature of our situation eschatological, and it makes it impossible for a large theological system » [12].

.

This setting occamistica leads to undesirable consequences in the dogmatic theology, who is deprived of his sources, which are precisely the teachings of the Church, Scripture and Tradition. Dice Kasper:

.

"There is no official index of the Church dogma […] So the question is sometimes naively mail, those dogmas properly exist, can not have absolutely reply » [13].

.

We respond by saying that it is not naive to ask how many and what are the dogmas and it is not impossible, but it is of vital interest for the salvation, answer with certainty to this question, as it is entirely legitimate to ask what and how many are the vital organs of the human body. And this question answers the Church itself in its official documents, especially in the teachings of the Popes and Councils. For this purpose, But we must first have a right concept of "dogma" [14], consistent with Catholic doctrine, distinguishing it from the upper degrees and lower than those of the data revealed. The highest degree are the same explicit teachings of the Lord contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which are the same sources of Revelation, and are therefore the foundations of dogma [15], which instead they are infallible interpretations of God's Word, proposed by the Church. Dogmas are the articles of faith. It is summarized in the Symbol of Faith. Their number in quality are contained in the Catechism and are illustrated by dogmatic theology.

.

Second, in the line of epistemology Occamistic, (c)he was also Luther's, Kasper can not get over and unify the multiple structure of thought, sign, this also, who did not understand the analogy entity, because the very notion entity is the most universal and the one that, as we have seen, allows the intellect to unite God and the world. This explains the dialectic mentality and historicism Kasper. Indeed, is the dialectic that the old thinking, by their very essence, They have a conceptual foundation duality: dialectics, It makes a comparison between the yes and no; the historical development, It has the act-power duality.

.

Third, taking the Hegelian dialectic It comprises two harmful consequences, already present in it, namely on the one hand, a pernicious opposition between the true and the real, other, the hypocritical glance ['Tipping'] between true and false. The consequences are very serious in theology, even blasphemous: on the one hand the hostility between God and man, lacking a concept of bodies linking the One side; other, horrible covenant between Christ and Belial, for explaining why Christ, when it is not recommended to be between yes and no, states that 'more than this comes from evil " [Mt 5,37]. This "more" is the addition of a third term, The "synthesis" of the Hegelian yes and no.

.

Note well that the aforesaid oscillation has nothing to do with the vibration signals of the doubt was, in which thought moves disadvantaged between yes and no without being able to decide, because it has no reason for either the one nor the other. But the desire of the subject is to find the truth and to stop in it, It does not care if it is in yes or no. Instead the hypocrite oscillation is studied and desired, with the express purpose of deceiving and appear or bring up what is not. The hypocrite language does not advance a choice between yes and no, but claims to simultaneously affirm and deny. He believes dispensed from observing the principle of non-contradiction.

.

The oscillation of which speaks Kasper therefore it involves a transgression of the principle of non-contradiction, already present in the smart Hegelian dialectic, master of duplicity, and in no way required by honest and loyal dialectics Aristotelian-Thomist [16], which entails not a pairing, but a simple comparison between affirmation and negation, in order to clarify, If possible, what choice do, in what similar to doubt, with the difference that here the thought moves constantly between the two poles, while in dialectical thinking he stops weakly and temporarily in one of the two.

.

L’idea, married for Kasper, under the pretext of the "mystery", God is above and independent of the principle of non-contradiction, It had its first signs in the thirteenth century with the theory of "double truth", that what is true in philosophy may be false in theology and vice versa. William of Ockham, on the other hand, admits that God, de potentia absoluta, does nothing inconsistent, but it can do so in the creation, that is from the ordinary, whereby, if he wanted, adultery could be at a time licit and illicit.

.

But those who believe that the contradiction is resolved in God, always under the pretext of mysticism, is Nicholas of Cusa in the fifteenth century, with its famous coincidentia oppositorum. We observe that if God's yes and no overlap, then it means that no longer holds the command of Christ to keep them apart and do not join them, which of course is blasphemous

.

Luther and Hegel start here and unfortunately Kasper follows them when he adopts the Hegelian dialectic. Thus God is in contradiction with Himself and verified nonsense that we saw about the theory of the divine attributes kasperiana. The moral consequences of this "mystical theology" you can imagine and are now before our eyes. We will see at the end of this essay.

.

On his already mentioned line of thought, Kasper also states:

.

"Christianity, its universality, He can not bind to a particular philosophy, indeed break and put in crisis every philosophical category. Just biblical theology, as noted Fuhrmans, rightly he brought to light that Christian thought is historical and dynamic thinking ' [17].

.

We answer remembering that Christianity is a supernatural life, that comes from a divine truth revealed by Christ to human reason, that is cultivated, polite, purified and raised from philosophy. Certainly, Christian truth is not deduced from the truths of reason, or you can have the claim to establish it or prove it. However, the exercise of reason, preferably educated by philosophy, It is an indispensable condition for the knowledge and understanding of Christian truth, which is added to those already known by reason, and then the very existence of Christianity, which it was founded by Christ for the good of man, rational animal.

.

Therefore, Actually, Christianity, although for its essence transcends all philosophy and is not the birth of any philosophy or any human mind, It is, however, substantially not bound to a particular philosophy, but the philosophy, as to its existence or at least to its better to be. And the least we can say is that Christianity is bound to the use of right reason, as a condition for the possibility of the same Christianity, because it is implementation of man as a reasonable. Nothing, however,, in this context, prevent the Church, to choose, between the various philosophies, one that most favors access of reason to faith. For this reason the Church, as I said above, It recommends the philosophy of St. Thomas in a special way.

.

The Christian thought can never be reduced to a "historical-dynamic thinking» but it is also a speculative-systematic thought, necessary to the formulation of dogmas and theological sciences. This exclusivism Kasper is because its not a simple honest historical thinking, but it is a thought historicist, denier of the immutability of truth, according to the modernist form, He paid in the past condemned by Pope Pius X.

.

The philosophical relativism leads to dogmatic relativism

.

This lack of perception of the universality of philosophical knowledge reduced to a contingent multiplicity of "thought forms", ie changing views, relativized to the changing historical contexts not only theology, but also the dogma, given that the Church, to define a dogma, uses notions of natural reason justified by the philosophy.

.

Kasper means the universality of Christianity not as founded on universal truths - the dogmas of the faith -, but on what he calls "original catholicity" or "ecumenical", which embraces in itself, moments as 'special', he calls "sectarian" [18], the two dogmatic Catholicism and Protestantism. Just that one wonders what would be the content of this Catholicism sopradogmatico. Evidently here also there is the background of Denken hegeliano, which is the all-encompassing dialectical totality of thought, that denies, synthesizes and surpasses itself in moments of imaginations, which are the dogmas or the "confessions" of the various positive religions.

.

Kasper rejects the idea of ​​the Church as widespread community in the world, effect of the preaching of a unique and universal truth - the Gospel -, that, starting from Rome, as the center of the mission, See of Peter's Successor, spreads in concentric circles around the world, but as a "polyhedron with many faces» [19], ie as a collection or federation of various particular and questionable interpretations of the Gospel, perhaps in contrast with each other.

.

Clearly here the influence of epistemology Occamistic [20], in which the universal unit does not radiate from the essence to all common - one of many ―, but it is just a collection of individuals at the same level, independent of each other and connected to each other only in a blurred image. It is a universality non-formal or speculative, but merely material and collective, as when we say: a "universal consensus" to say: "of all".

.

Kasper would like to highlight the fact the dogmatic progress, but it intends to modernist manner, not as a clarification or explanation of an immutable truth, but as dialectical overcoming a contrary view of the past. Indeed, as we shall see, According to him, to interpret the Word of God, you should not use the philosophy of St. Thomas, but the Hegelian dialectic.

.

For Kasper dogma does not reflect an objective reality, external to the subject, but, the idealistic manner, "The dogma has value only insofar as it expresses the inner" [21]. It is not mediation or interpretation of the infallible Word of God made by the Magisterium of the Church, once and for all, but one of the Magisterium thesis, which must be screened and controlled, comparing it with Scripture. It is the method of Luther: "The dogma - says Kasper - must be understood in light of the testimony of Scripture" [22]. He approves Rahner, which states that "a dogma may very well be true and yet humanly premature, guilty, dangerous, ambiguous, tempting, reckless" [23]. I do not comment. According to his dialectical language that says and does not say, the dogma can be simultaneously "permanent" and "temporary":

.

"A dogma is the provisional form in which the eschatological-definitive truth of Christ becomes an event. Tentative is the term with which you want to express the character of anticipation of their dogma; so it is not to be understood in its opposition to 'final', but in the original sense of the word, as a precursor of the advance flake» [24].

.

We observe again that the universality of the Gospel and of Catholic dogma message It is not given, as he believes Kasper, from simple pragmatic convergence, dialogic or dialectical, constantly evolving, a plurality of special "forms of thought" and inconsistent and conflicting ways to understand or interpret the dogma, the Gospel and the Tradition, but by the universality of a certain number of precise content of faith, unchangeable and absolutely true, universally shared and effectively and commonly shared and accepted by all the faithful.

.

We must therefore support the exact opposite of what is claimed Kasper, namely that Christianity, precisely because of its universality and to better promote this universality, and its spread in all times and all places, especially in its most cultured forms and high, It is institutionally and essentially bound to the debtor and philosophy and precisely, between the various philosophies, to the one or ones that best help the reason to access the knowledge of faith. Indeed, the Christian knowledge, as knowledge of universal openness, for all men, It can only be rooted in what is universal in human knowledge, and this is nothing more than the effect of the cognitive faculty that characterizes the man as a man, ie that faculty which all possess, and which it is precisely the reason. Now, as we know, philosophy is precisely the supreme knowledge of reason. That, in the words of St. Thomas, and the perfect operation.

.

On the basis of what has been said, it will be evident that then claim that Christianity "breaks and breaks all philosophical category" It is a serious slander to Christianity damage, which can be output from the lips of Luther in a fit of fury against the Catholic Church, that surprises and shocked to read in the book of a Catholic theologian, besides all today Cardinal. A denial of this serious false history Kasper, he who gives so much importance to history, one must say that a "loose and put crisis every philosophical category" were, if anything, the barbarians, that in the dark ages of medieval assaulted and destroyed the abbeys, where the monks kept the treasures of classical and Christian culture.

.

The "historical thinking" according to Kasper

.

The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations [Will 33,1]

.

According to Kasper, in theology should replace the "old thinking" to the metaphysical thought. But what exactly he meant by this expression, we have already met? Here we find the core of his gnoseology. The "historical thinking", per Kasper, is not only the thought or knowledge of the one who narrates the historical facts, but it is especially true think like this, ie thought consistent with reality, because the reality is Kasper history. As we have already seen, the old thinking, therefore, for him, It is not as pertaining to think of other forms of thought, as, for instance, metaphysical thought. No. On the contrary, metaphysical thought is not even a real thinking, because it assumes as an object of unchanging reality, that does not exist, because for Kasper, as Heraclitus, all wetsuit: panta rei. And then, even in the moral field it is not given a science or a moral theology, whose object values ​​or absolute duties, universal and immutable, but also a moralist, to be consistent with the reality of human action and determine the rules, It must make use of historical thinking, He must be thinking "historically", ie variables must devise standards, mutable, objectionable, conditioned, contextualized, because these are the actual rules of human conduct, whereas belief that human behavior can be regulated by universal and abstract principles, perhaps on metaphysical foundations, It is an illusion deleterious, which stiffens the action taking away its own dynamism, his freedom and his openness to progress [25].

.

But Kasper not only changes the object of the concepts - and this may be right, if they are related to changing things -, but changing the very concepts, changes their meaning, it is never absolute,, but always historically conditioned, and then change their meaning even the dogmas of the Church, as conceptual formulations. this change, per Kasper, not only involves an evolution in the history and diversifying among different cultures and religions, essentially it consists of a "swing" or simultaneous duality of meaning between the two opposite poles of the contradiction, because Kasper takes the Hegelian conception of reality as a 'dialectical', that is inconsistent. It is that reality and then the truth is expressed precisely through the junction of the yes and no.

.

Let's see how Hegel himself explains this process:

.

"The task is to implement the universal spirit nell'infondergli, removing certain thoughts and solidified. Moreover, it is much more difficult to render fluids thoughts solidified, which render the fluid sensuous existence. ... Thoughts become fluid, when the pure thought, this inner immediacy, It is recognized as a moment, or pure certainty of self abstracts from itself. ... It must abandon fixed in his autoporsi: both the hard concrete of pure, which it is the same I in opposition against the separate content, both fixed and of the different, which, places in the element of pure thought, part of that ego unconditioned " [26].

.

Kasper applies this method in theology, so, speaking of the divine attributes, it follows that God is both knowable and unknowable, being and becoming, simple and differentiated, immutable and mutable, eternal and temporal, impassive and liable, powerful and powerless, finite and infinite, immortal and mortal, heavenly and worldly [27]. Kasper speaks here of the Person of Christ, and apparently confuses the human nature of Christ with the divine, as he had already done Hegel [28].

.

Let's take an example of this method Hegelian dialectic in the manner in which Kasper would convince unit, in God, power and impotence:

.

"God is so supreme in its power and freedom, which can also afford to give up everything without “lose one's face”. And so the power is affirmed God's own impotence, His lordship in bondage, his life in death " [29]. It is so absurd that says, that not even worth refuting.

.

Analysis Lutherans

.

Kasper, the wake of Hegel, echoing the heresy of Marcion, God opposes the identity and the "abstract" to the God of the Old Testament "concrete" and dialectized [ie Trinitarian] New, namely, Christ, develops dialectically Lutheran setting of the historical transition from the Old Testament God angry and punishing God, sweet and "compassion" of the Gospel. So does the praises of Luther, Christology against the "metaphysics" of St. Thomas, he finally discovered, after sixteen centuries, the true face of the evangelical Christ. Indeed, he attributes to Luther the merit of representing

.

"A break with a whole set of metaphysical theology bases. The Reformer is not starting from a philosophical concept of God to understand the cross, but tries to understand God right from the phenomenon of the cross. This new approach we find expressed in the same “Disputa in Heidelberg” of 1518: “It is named theologian worthily, he who considers the intellect the invisible things of God through the things done, but the party seeking the intellect things visible and rear of God through the suffering and of the cross”. […] The hidden mystery of God should not be located beyond: such a God not interested in speculative. We must not penetrate the mysteries of the divine majesty, but be content with the God of the cross. God can only be found in Christ; if we look for it outside of him, we will find only the devil. Starting from these premises, Luther comes to an entire Christology reversal » [30].

.

It is false that "God can only be found in Christ". We find God through reason, before you find Him, it's better, in Cristo. Luther and with him Kasper fact forgets that we may not know that Christ is God, if we did not already know that God exists, that God demonstrated by reason [RM 1,20], She already knew, and Moses [Is 3,14]), before Christ appeared in the world.

.

There is no question of "to seek God outside of Christ". No Christian savvy dreams crazy like that, but it is starting to seek Christ by God, because, if reason does not find God above, as Creator of the world, starting from the things of the world, then Christ is not; and he that believeth, as Luther and Kasper, finding Christ independently or against a previous rational knowledge of God, meets only a false Christ, namely the "god of this world" [II Cor 4,4], that is the devil.

.

There is nothing wrong with investigating philosophically Divine Nature regardless of Christological dogma. This is nothing more than rational theology. This survey is useful to interreligious dialogue and is very useful to clarify the meaning of the Christological dogma, and preserves us from falling into the confusion that Kasper is between human and divine attributes attributes.

.

The meaning and purpose of the dialectic

.

Kasper thinks the cognitive instrument of theology is the dialectic. It lacks the concept of theology as a science [31], and then as a speculative science. On this point he is closer to Luther than to Hegel, which equates dialectics with speculative science. In addition to this, Kasper serious mistake is to believe that for the interpretation of Scripture and dogma is better to refer to the Hegelian conception of dialectics, rather than that of Aristotle. Indeed, the enormous advantage that, in the order of the above-mentioned purposes, offers the Aristotelian dialectic than that of Hegel is that, while the former is a school of humility for the reason, educating them and adjusting it on the floor of the argument and then abituandola likely to correct any errors or avoid false appearances, the Hegelian dialectic, that solves the real opposition in the thought and in the effects of the will, encourages the arrogance of the subject lured to be a moment of the 'Absolute dialectical. And we know how all biblical ethics is nothing more than a contest between humility and pride, between Christ and Belial for the rule on the heart of man.

.

Following the Hegelian dialectic, Kasper has moved away from Christianity even more of Luther, because Luther, at least, had seen, albeit clumsily, the risks of a superb reason and, albeit so arrogant, the fundamental importance of obeying the Word of God, while the Hegelian dialectic turns God into a syllogism and dissolves the Mystery in the development of history.

.

Kasper still insists in these terms:

.

"The Church must gather the wisdom of all peoples and of all times, also of all the forms of thought, because your ad is getting bigger and surpasses every thought. Theology, therefore, It has precisely the task of destroying every form of thought, di integrate, and to overcome it in another. For that theology must always think dialectically " [32].

.

We observe that the theology is not the sum of more theologies between them diverse and much less conflicting. The theologies of the various authors or of the various schools are different manifestations of theology as such, ie as a science in its universality. Theology must not destroy or exceed any single form of thinking, but rather recognize, integrate and enhance it and, in his welcoming universality, He must comply with them and promote them all and ensure that communicate with each other in a mutual complementarity.

.

Theology must think dialectically yes in formulating new and exchange opinions or criticisms of the same, but must above all be in continuous research and make work of science, reaching certain conclusions and demonstrated, universally shared, that one day the Church could elevate the rank of dogma, as it happened to some theses of Thomistic theology.

.

"Dialectics, per Kasper, It is only the faint image of the dialogue and properly translated into a monologue what usually happens in the dialogue: the passage through the many aspects of the truth, which it is fixed in its non nonobjectivizability » [33].

.

We say that the dialectic is not only monological ― relevant to the subjective opinions dialectics -, but also dialogue, in the sense that it governs the discussion or dialogue between two thinking, as for example it happens in Dialogues Platonic or as happens systematically, after the boost given by Abelard in the twelfth century, in medieval theological treatises, called Highest, use school. In them, the teacher solves a problem, the question, through the comparison of opposing hypothesis, the method of It did not, for which the teacher motivates its scientific opinion or questionable whether it was, responding to the contrary objections.

.

For example, when St. Thomas, in question IX Prima Pars of QUESTION He wonders if God is immutable, but it examines some opinions that say that God becomes, but, concluded the examination of these opinions, formulates his judgment, resting on the Bible, stating with clarity and certainty, without ambiguity or reserves, that God (a.1) and only God (a.2) It is immutable, unlike a Kasper or Rahner, for which, on the basis of '' oscillation 'dialectic, God is an immutable and mutable time.

.

The Hegelian dialectic

.

Kasper inspires its conception of the dialectic to that of Hegel. Let's see his thoughts. dialectics, for him, an action of "substance-subject ', that is, the "spirit" or "self":

.

"The substance is the movement of the put himself or because it is the mediation of the becoming-other-than-self with itself. As a subject, it is the simple and pure negativity is, precisely what, the cleavage of a simple two-part or opposing duplication; this, in turn, It is the negation of this indifferent diversity and its opposition; only this equality that reconstitutes or reflection within the other being in itself - not the original unit as such, nor immediate unity as such - is the real. The real is the becoming of himself, the circle, which presupposes and has its top end and that only through the implementation and its end is effectual » [34].

.

But for Hegel God himself is dialectical, namely it becomes historically:

.

"The life of God ... until degrades all'insipidezza, When lacking the seriousness, pain, patience and the negative labor. In itself, that life is the intact equality and unity with itself, that he has never seriously engaged in being more and nell'estraneazione, and even in the overcoming of this estrangement. But such itself is the abstract universality, in which, i.e., It is independent of the nature of it to be for itself, and then, in general, dall'automovimento of the form. ... The true is the whole. But the whole is only the essence of which is completed by its development. The Absolute it must be said that it is essentially result, that only at the end it is what is truth; and precisely in what consists its nature, being effectuality, subject and become himself " [35].

.

Still Hegel:

.

"The purpose implemented or existing effectual is movement; It has become now in its deployment; but just this unrest is the Self; and it is equal to that to that simplicity and immediacy of the beginning because it is the result, because it is what is returned in himself. But that was back in himself is precisely the Self; and the Self is the equality that relates to Himself " [36].

.

The dialectical movement, Hegel, It is the movement of the spirit for which, in history, accidentally it becomes substantially, the relative becomes absolute, death becomes life, the false becomes true and nothing gets to be, by virtue of '' immense power of the negative ", for which the self opposes itself to itself and, denying this opposition, I know again. But the opposition dialectical negation-affirmation, Hegel, It is not limited to the realm of thought and language, but concerns the same be, the real, under the well-known principle of identity of being idealistic in thought.

.

Denial is act of the spirit and therefore is an act, the will and language. But as Hegel being is spirit, the negation is primarily a practical act under the real, ie it is a cancel or, as expressed Hegel, It is a "remove" [Repeal]. But then out of nowhere "magically" being resurrected.

.

Here is the "magic" of dialectics:

.

"What accidental it may, separated from its scope, that what is bound and in his only real connection with another, gains its own particular existence and its own distinct freedom, everything is the immense power of the negative; it is the energy of thinking, Pure I. The dead, if we want to call that unreality, It is the most terrible thing; and hold fast the dead, This is what we will require great strength […] That life that endures death and maintains it, is the life of the spirit. It gains its truth only on condition of finding itself in the absolute devastation [ …] The spirit is strong because he knows this sol to face the negative and dwell with him. This pause is the magical force that turns negative in being. It is the same as was said above Subject, while in his element it gives existence to definiteness, It exceeds the abstract immediacy namely, generally, only existent, and is therefore the true substance, being or the immediacy, that does not have the same outside himself, but it is this same " [37].

.

So says Tomas Tyn, o.p. this dialectic of an Absolute, effect of "negative" which combines life to death, being nowhere. It promises a vain and impossible to reconcile them, which can not be other than an oscillation between the one and the other, one staying between yes and no, a serve two masters:

.

"The faces are opposed to one another irriconciliati, fleeting moments of piercing dialectic, elevating herself to absolute principle, after giving the identity between being and nothingness, nihilisms two - one equivocante " [Hegel] "Of an all based on nothing, the other univocante of a whole that, indifferent as to its particular moments, stalemate fails to found, because it is already, for immediate identity " [Schelling] "Indifferently everything - that the dialectic would claim to unite in a third and absolute nihilism, for which nothing at all coincide with the whole of nowhere " [38].

.

According to the Hegelian dialectic, Kasper makes his, it is never possible to make statements or net and absolute negation, always accurate and in any case, both the dogmatic and in the moral field. You have to express themselves so that what we say can be interpreted in the opposite direction to that which appears. Our yes must betraying a no. Under the yes there must be no. This judge twice, with a judgment poster and another underlying or underlying or hidden, but not enough to avoid recognition, opposite judgment at first, it said in greek ypò-krinein, hence the Italian term "hypocrisy". For this, the theological language Kasper, become customary a real moral imperative. It is to bargain with the false, hiding it under the real, so the little fish that he hears us, abboccando hook, ingests the poison. Indeed, according to these principles and these winding streets, any proposition, also dogmatic, is maneuverable and unambiguous, It can go subject to conflicting interpretations and moral produce adverse effects, opposed to those that appear on the surface.

.

But what, for the Hegelian dialectic is not to create scruples or upset, rather it is normal thing, allowing you the freedom of thought and theological pluralism, as for example the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism. On the contrary, for Hegel is the precision and uniqueness that are a sign of a naive, one-sided and incomplete real, which takes no account of its historicity and its contradictory dialectical.

.

The duplicity erected into a system

.

lying lips, speak with a double heart [Will 12,3]

No one can serve two masters;: or hate the one and love the other or to the one and despise the other [Mt 6,24]

.

The opposing the no to yes may be disobedience or act of virtue. Disobedience, if we say no to God. Virtue, If we say no to sin. But there can also be the theoretical denial, when we say no to a thesis. And even here there can be honest or dishonest: the honest, if we say no to fake; the dishonest, If we say no to the truth. Christ commands us to say yes to that is yes and no to what is not. We must not contradict the truth and we must condemn the false. Who is halfway, It comes from the devil. This is the duplicity, represented in the Bible by the forked tongue of the snake.

.

This is the meaning of the words of St. Paul:

.

"What I decide, I decide according to the flesh, so to say at the same time “Yes, Yes” and “the, No”? God is faithful, our word to you is not “Yes” and “No”. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you, I, Silvanus and Timothy, It was not “Yes” and “No”, but in him was the “Yes”. And actually all the promises of God in him have become “Yes”» [II Cor 1, 17-20].

.

dialectics, as we have seen, plays with the yes and no with. It can be a dangerous game, when we want to be clever or if we want to deceive others. There are rules that both the dialectical thinking of the scientific. They are at once logical and moral rules rules. Aristotle, who cured honesty in speaking [39], He took pains to make a list of fallacies in thinking and talking, to 'directories sophistical ", to warn against dishonesty in thinking and talking, ie against the duplicity and hypocrisy. Now, unfortunately Kasper declares no admirer of healthy dialogue Aristotelian, used by St. Thomas, but that of Hegel, who is a teacher sum of ambiguity, malicious insinuations, fascinating tricks, sophism, misconduct and dishonesty in reasoning and conclusion.

.

Kasper connects the analogy does the Thomist conception, but the dialectic of Hegel, so it is no wonder if he, as we have seen, It falls into a false concept of analogy. We continue now the discussion in relation to this duplicity of the Hegelian dialectic, which, far from lend itself to interpret Scripture, falsifies the roots.

.

Kasper is in favor of the analogy, but it does not have a fair concept. He says:

.

"The analogy argues exist between absolute and finite identity and difference. It combines identity and diversity, negation and position in an oscillating center. This center, however, It is not a concept of being that includes God and the world, which could bring, in truth, to some form of identity philosophy, but it means, in the sense of the analogy of proportionality, only a correspondence [no identity] the proportions of the two analogati " [40].

.

Some observations. God and the world exist. Yet God is no different from the world. It can therefore be preach in either case. But the meaning of being in the two cases is different. So we have something - being - we preach around in many ways, senses or different meanings. To on pollacòs legòmenon, as Aristotle said. The being is said in many ways. It is always being for each entity, world and God, so we have a single concept, but with a plurality of different meanings. Between God and the world there is no identity, but similarity and diversity. They are not the same thing. They are two different realities, differentissime. Two things can not be at once the same and different. One can not affirm and deny at the same time the identity or the difference. God and the world do two. Yet they are included in a single concept being analog. This is because the notion itself contains its differences, without, however, completely abstracting from them.

.

The affirmation and negation do not fit in the analogy, but in the dialectic. In the analogy there is no question of finding a "swinging heart" between two opposite, but rather to move the intellect attention among the various analogati, for instance, in considering the analog concept of life, from the vegetative life and climb to the divine life.

.

In the analogy is not together with the yes no, not "oscillates" between the yes and no, because it would be duplicity, but every analogatum is in the order of Yes, as well as in Christ, who is the supreme analogatum "There was just so" [II Cor 1,17]. The analogy is placed on the floor of the diversity, the similarity, concordance, the relationship, comparison, the proportion.

.

Kasper is right to connect through dialogue. But it is wrong to link it with the dialectic. The latter requires a choice between the yes and no, even if it comes to the truth by comparing two opposing views. Dialogue instead says exchange, communication, integration, correction, enrichment, mutual complementarity.

.

Continue Kasper:

.

"Man can think only in that double movement" - swinging - "which means continuously transcend the finite to the infinite and continuous infinity materialize towards the end. Such a thought must be characterized as a historical thought; it is in a never-ending dialectic of past and future, of freedom and necessity, in a dialectic always disposed over itself and, as such, It is circumscribed than any static thinking. As the radicalization of transcendental problematic, it also captures the absolute first as an internal moment in this historicity " [41].

.

The ascent of thought towards the transcendent and universal abstract, and the return in the concrete singular and immanent, apply to moral thought, which must establish the concrete action, not for what metaphysics and speculative theology, that, After a climb to the sky, includes, in Static Thought, ie stable and unchanging, the "things above" [With the 3,1]. It is false, therefore, that man can think only in thought "historical", Whereas, in addition to everything what Kasper mean by this expression, as we have seen.

.

The then conceive of the Absolute as "internal time of historicity" of consciousness, He knows a lot of idealism. Certainly God is present and intimate to the conscience of every man. But present it in these terms gives a false image of the same Absolute, That seems to be a thought, albeit sublime, but still a simple human idea, immanent to the historical limits of consciousness, when in fact the eternal and infinite God transcends them indefinitely.

.

Continue Kasper:

.

"The modern interpretation of the principle of analogy […] They make their own transcendental approach and intend analogy as explication dell'autocompimento spirit, which can only express the finite horizon of infinity no longer be objectified and therefore no longer expressible uniquely " [42].

.

Although this is "modern interpretations of the analogy", yet they do not understand what is the analogy, which does not suppose any idealistic transcendentalism and no "self-fulfillment of the spirit", but simply the analog-transcendental being notion. For this, to know the real analogue in theology does not express "the finite only in the horizon of the infinite", but expresses analog being horizon.

.

Theology does not at all part of the concept of God, to know the world in the light of that concept; but, on the contrary, sensitive part of the experience of the world to go up to God as cause and creator of the world [RM 1,20; Sap 13,5]. It is true that God can not be objectified, that is knowable concepts. It is, some, not uniquely, but analogously.

.

The dialectical conception of God

.

Dice Kasper:

.

"The absolute must be known only in and with that oscillating position and negation center. What in scholastic theology it is juxtaposed in such a way as relatively extrinsic the way this position and the way of exclusion, here it becomes, instead, unique global movement of thought, indeed it becomes the exercise of the spirit itself. The absolute is then known only as dialectical movement of the spirit and not in a so-called analogue concept » [43].

.

Kasper at some point, Comes Clean and shows very clearly that his "analogy" is nothing more than a red herring, that actually conceals the Hegelian dialectic synthesis between yes and no, the knowing and not knowing:

.

"Is it not true that man, also and precisely in its opening endlessly, still remains finite spirit? And in this finite spirit can he think of the infinite? Or will not know and fail to realize at the same time?» [44].

.

As there is double vision in the physical view - for example, see the drunks or myopia -, so there is one in view of the spirit. And as the first is abnormal and unpleasant, so it is even more unpleasant abnormal and the second. This, however, is not inevitable and there is no taste to try, as it seems they try Kasper.

.

With a double view, God thus appears twice: eternal and temporal, immutable and mutable, impassible and suffering, punisher and an accomplice of sin, merciful and cruel, etc.. Kasper completely misunderstands the relationship between positive and negative theology theology: It does not include that it is not absolutely simultaneously affirm and deny the same divine attribute. What would that say yes and no, that Christ gives to the devil. It is, instead, just as medieval theology teaches him unjustly despised, own accurately separate, no contrast, the moment of positive theology from that of the negative, for the fact that the second is constructed on the basis of the first, as, while that asserts a divine attribute in its absoluteness - eg. the goodness -, the second one denies evidently not as such, but, placing itself in terms of our human way of conceptualizing and how we can understand the divine goodness. The favorite method preserves the transcendental content of the concept of goodness, but he denies the finished way in which goodness is realized in our human knowledge [45].

.

In front of the divine Mystery, the concept is not in contradiction with itself, but on the contrary it is stated in its maximum power and rises to its highest dignity, certainly not with his way of being finished [46], but in its theological content. Here Hegel was right against Schelling. And the concept, in the moment in which this warns its limit, realizes to be infinitely surpassed by way of being divine. And this experience makes him realize that he had reached God, because, if not warned to be exceeded, what it conceives would not God, but an idol. On this point Schelling had a point.

.

The God of Schelling and Hegel

.

Kasper proposes a theology, which brings together the idea of ​​God in Schelling and Hegel, despite the strong contrast that divides. But both are derived from the Lutheran conception of God, and this explains, in my view, this fact join them together. It remains, however, that, while Schelling focuses attention on God is concealed, Mystery absolute and undifferentiated ideal-real identity, subject-object, unknowable and inexpressible, «coincidentia oppositorum», the God of whom you can say everything and the opposite of everything, "Foolishness of preaching", an Absolute that, as is known, It appears to Hegel "the night - as he says -, in which all cows are black ", Hegel considers the God who makes history and appears in consciousness void contrary species, the God has revealed, the Christ event, the Logos, the reason, the word, the concept, l ' "concrete Universal".

.

Kasper, As for Schelling, in its conception to its, the reports in these terms:

.

"The infinite not objective, native to, It may not be able objectively, but only in an absolute way. This transcendental knowledge, however, It is not simply beside the objective knowledge, but it includes it and makes it possible to, thematizable is not in itself, It should not be objectified and then distorted. It can only be discovered in the dialectic, in quell'oscillare and in that switch between " [47].

.

This knowledge "absolute" is the dialectic ever, come in Hegel: the synthesis of the yes and no, affirmation and negation, with the difference that while in Hegel the Absolute can and should be designed rationally and determinately, whereby, as Hegel says "the mystery is unveiled», absolute knowledge of Schelling is indifferent to conceptual distinctions, leaving them in their opposition, and therefore it gives the impression to appreciate the mystical and divine experience darkness, but when this knowledge is expressed, It falls in the '' tipping 'between yes and no, we have already seen. It is basically the coincidentia oppositorum Cusano, even though we have already seen.

.

Even for St. Thomas, of course, God is the Absolute, but this does not prevent that we can have a concept, though imperfect, Essence of God, expressible in language, already according to reason and even more by faith. This concept, produced by our reason, albeit it illuminated by faith, certainly can not understand or embrace exhaustively the divine essence in its infinity. Yet the limited can know the truth. At the same time, St. Thomas does not deny that our word is lacking, when we consider, especially in the experience of charity, the infinite goodness of God. It thus does not deny the mystical experience. But it is careful not to base it on the oscillation between the yes and no. Instead, it comes from a yes to God said with all his strength and on the basis of the truths of faith.

.

remains, as we have seen, we can conceive of God by resorting to the concept of being analog, the fact that Scripture teaches us that God is "the One Who Is" [Is 3,14], therefore, as St. Thomas, God is a body, the essence of which is to be absolutely and infinitely. In this sense, God is the Infinite and the Absolute. analog speak concept, for the fact that, as Scripture teaches [Sap 13,5], we can know that God exists and therefore we can farcene a concept, starting from the consideration of entities, that the things, which are effects of his creative power: "In fact, from the greatness and beauty of creatures by analogy perception of their Creator ". For if all things have in common that exist and have being, a being whom participate, without any of them is to be the essence, the reason compels us to admit that, having received them being, there must be a Being, What I have given them, that is, that has created, a Being who, to explain the existence of entities, in turn has received being, but that is pure and infinite Being, what St. Thomas calls the very being of God by itself, subsisting, God.

.

Once, therefore, that we have formed the notion of being most universal, we can be able to preach be both things, that God, but we must bear in mind that we are speaking in the two cases not univocally, like them and God's will could be preaching in the same direction, but very different in two ways, ie analog, because, while things were being, ie they are finished, God is the infinite. For this, Aquinas says that while the reality has created that which it has to be, God is His. And on the other hand, exaggerating the difference between the creature and the Creator and falling being nell'equivocità for mysticism and a false sense of mystery, We can not say that being is not predicated of God, by virtue of the "transcendence" of God and of his superiority over all human concepts. This is the error Schelling, in which also he falls Kasper.

.

The God of idealism proposed by Kasper oscillates between the ambiguity and the 'uniqueness. This trend is in nuce already in the God of Luther, that connects the Augustinian conception of God within the conscience and the light of consciousness, source of eternal truths, col Dio in Ockham, which is a God who does not take account of our certainties, then a God, on which attributes you can equivocate, because his inscrutable and absolute will not command what is good, but what He wants it to be good. Whereby, if God would allow adultery, it would be legitimate. Indeed, per Ockham, since it does not admit the existence of universal essences, It does not exist a human nature, governed by universal moral laws, valid for every individual, that the good man is not the observance of these laws, but simply the fact that every single man fulfilling the will of God in his particular situation and men's variable man. The duties of man are not motivated by a reason, which does not give certainties, but only to opinions, and the mere fact that God wants it so, and might want otherwise.

.

The God of idealism approved and recommended by Kasper and he considered better and more biblical than that of St. Thomas, It is a conjunction of the Lutheran conception of God with the Cartesian, through Kant and Fichte.

.

The Augustinian God in consciousness is reflected both in Luther that Descartes, but while in Augustine consciousness comes into herself to open up to external things that lead to God and the visible structure, institutional and sacramental of the Church led by the Vicar of Christ, Luther and Descartes, the God in the conscience becomes, to quote Kasper

.

"The modern principle of subjectivity, the process in which man becomes conscious of his freedom as autonomy, and if the starting point makes, and measurement means for a whole conception of reality " [48].

.

God and history

.

The proposal is clear kasperiana: It is to replace, interpretation of Christian revelation, Thomist philosophy with that idealistic, despite the age-old recommendation that St. Thomas made by Popes, to the requirements of Vatican II and the following Pontiffs, as St. John Paul II in the encyclical Faith and Reason and the repeated condemnations of idealism by the Magisterium of the Church since the nineteenth century. It's evident, also, in Kasper, the intent to favor Luther behind bestowed praises to Schelling and Hegel.

.

We consider some significant statements by Kasper. He believes that

.

"Hegel's philosophy ... offers to the theologian of the conceptual tools that help him, more than it has been unable metaphysical traditions of the past, to understand the advent of Christ and to reflect on God no longer philosophical and abstract terms, but concretely, to think that God as the God and Father of Jesus Christ " [49].

.

Let's see what would be the second Kasper these 'conceptual tools', they do know the Christian mystery better than St. Thomas. He says:

.

"A God who is now thought within the horizon of subjectivity, It can not be understood as the supreme Existing, perfect and unchanging. This leads, after several attempts undertaken by Scotism and medieval nominalism, as well as by thinkers such as Meister Eckhart and Cusanus, a de-substantialization the concept of God ' [50].

.

Kasper praises Hegel because it has come to conceive the Absolute

.

"Not as substance but as a subject, as it alien another by itself " [51]. "The whole (God) It is nothing but the essence is accomplished through its evolution " [52]. "This historical understanding of God - says Kasper [53] - it is mediated at the level Christological and reaches its peak in the phenomenon of the cross, in an attempt to understand the death of God "

.

"The event of the cross - Kasper continues talking about Hegel - is the outward description of the absolute Spirit story»[God]; "For it takes place in a God “split”»; the death of God means that he denies himself: "In this self-alienation death is the highest summit of finitude, the supreme denial and therefore to the greater manifestation of God ' [54].

.

He also says Kasper:

.

"By its very essence the absolute Spirit puts himself in its difference from itself. According to Hegel, this is philosophical exegesis of the biblical said: 'God is love'" [55].

.

It is evident here dialectic interpretation of the mystery of the Cross, which has nothing to do with what the doctrine of the Church and Scripture teach on the subject [56].

.

Consequences in anthropology and moral

.

If the house is founded on quicksand of becoming and uncertainty, no wonder whether it might not have a firm structure and ensure a safe living space. And in fact the kasperiana anthropology and morality based thereon leaves us at the mercy of the waves agitated history, without a fixed destination and without a sheltered harbor where refuge, it's not what takes place in the dialectic of our subjective consciousness. Shortly it helps us recall an "Absolute" like us embroiled in the events, in misfortune and in the darkness of this mortal life, so much so that it is not clear if it is he who comes to our aid and we must help Him.

.

Dice Kasper:

.

"The man is facing an insurmountable mystery, indeed he himself is an impenetrable mystery. You can not derive the essential lines of our existence " [57].

.

It resolves the delicate problem of the essence of man, as well as the goals and the laws of his life with a cheap mysticism, which it is nothing more than a convenient but shameful flight from responsibility. In this way, abandons the serious moral issue in the hands of any charlatan. For a Catholic theologian of the thing, and then, It is even worse, considering the rich and millennial doctrinal heritage, which have about anthropology and Catholic morality.

.

The reduction of man, made by Kasper, a mere possibility to implement the grace, a mere vessel of grace, It may give the impression of high spirituality, but it is actually a straightforward imposture, rather it is an absurdity, because grace is a perfection of nature: if there is no perfectible, may not even exist the perfection it should refine it.

.

He says Kasper:

.

"The infinite distance that separates man from God, the creature from his Creator, and whose mediation foretells in the person of man as a question and as hope, It can not be filled by human possibilities. By its very essence this mediation can come only from God. In his personality, man is only grammar, power oboedientialis, pure and passive possibilities of this mediation » [58]. "Anthropology is, as it were, the grammar of which God uses to self-expression; but the grammar as such remains open to set out the most diverse and finds its concrete determination only in human life of Jesus " [59].

.

The man before God is not just a passive "grammar", but it is a free creature made in his image, with very specific purposes and regulated by precise laws, whose obedience is accountable to God; It is not a tape recorder, but a personal active subject, an interlocutor able to answer yes or no, and that God calls you to say yes.

.

In ethics descending anthropology kasperiana everything is possible and the opposite of everything. Nothing is stable, nothing is universal, anything you need, nothing is absolute. But everything becomes, everything is historicised, everything is relative, everything is diversified, everything is contextualized, everything is particular and concrete.

.

The disturbing note of this historicist and relativist ethics They should put us on alert and make us aware of the importance of good metaphysical and theological foundations of morality, if we do not want human conduct, abandoning the streets of the Gospel, falls to the level of 'one man Wolf.

.

Varazze, 24 May 2018

.

.

_______________________

NOTE

[1] The Absolute in history last Schelling's philosophy, Jaca Book, Milan 1986, p.492.

[2] Cf G.Cavalcoli, St. Thomas and Christian philosophy, in The Christian philosophy of the century and the Magisterium of Pope Leo XIII, in Proceedings of the Perugia 29.V-1.VI 2003, by the Archbishop of Perugia, Perugia 2004, pp.323-332; AA.VV., Thomas Aquinas and the object of metaphysics, Armando Editore, Rome 2004.

[3] And 'now that the conviction of rahneriani Rahner has supplanted St. Thomas or St. Thomas both of our time. this conviction, pace of rahneriani, of course it is based on a misunderstanding of the fundamental truths of reason and faith.

[4] See the great encyclical Neptune Paul II Faith and Reason of 1998.

[5] Cf E.Gilson, The spirit of medieval philosophy, Ed.Morcelliana, Brescia 1964.

[6] Some texts on the importance and relevance of the thought of St. Thomas: G.Mattiussi, XXIV The thesis of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas approved by the Congregation of Studies, Typography of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome 1947; J.Maritain, The Angelic Doctor, Desclée Brewer&C.ie, Paris 1930; A.Fernandez –M.Cordovani – M.Maggiolo – R.Spiazzi, The mission of Thomism, Old Editions S.Sisto, Roma-Napoli 1967; C.Giacon, The major thesis of Thomism, Patron Editions, Bologna 1967; P.Parente, Thomistic therapy for the modern problematic from Leo XIII to Paul VI, Edizioni Logos, Milan 1979; J.A.Weisaheipl, Thomas Aquino.Vita, thought, works, Jaca Book, Milan 1988; N.Sarale, St. Thomas Aquinas today, Publishing Civilization, Brescia 1990; A.Livi, Thomas Aquinas. The future of Christian thought, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milan 1997; R.Spiazzi, The thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, Dominican Studio editions, Bologna 1997; R.Garrigou-Lagrange, The Thomistic synthesis, edited M.Bracchi, Preface of A.Livi, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2015.

[7] Here Kasper argues with him Przywara.

[8] The Absolute in history, op.cit., p.492.

[9] As is known, Gaetano was commissioned by Pope Leo X to order Luther to recant. Unfortunately, the mission failed because Luther would have liked to defend themselves, but at the most learned and pious Dominican Cardinal, obedient to the Pope, He was not permitted to discuss with Luther. At this point Luther would not hear of correct and remained attached to his ideas, as he would do for the rest of his life. Who knows that instead, if the two had been able to talk, to Gaetano it had not been possible, with its exceptional persuasiveness, to open a chink in the consciousness of Luther about the importance of metaphysics to interpret the Word of God. Cf. on this interesting topic in-depth study of the Dominican historian Charles Morerod, Today Bishop of Lausanne, Cajetan and Luther 1518, Friborg, Switzerland 1994.

[10] Cf J.Maritain, Seven lessons of Being and the first principles of speculative reason, Who are you, Paris 1934, pp.88-96.

[11] It can not be divided in himself or multiple, though it has multiple meanings, it must cover the full breadth and extension of being and being out there than nothing. This was already the error of Henry of Ghent, nel sec.XIII, who thought that there were two similar analog entity notions between them, one for God and for the world. Cf E.Bettoni, Philosopher Duns Scotus, Publishing Life and Thought, Milan 1966, pp.67-69.

[12] The Absolute in history, op.cit., p.504.

[13] The dogma in the Word of God, Herder-Morcelliana, p.48.

[14] Denz. 1507, 3020, 3074,. 3540; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.88-90; Cf "the Code of 1917: «Christ has given the obligation, as the, And during the presence of the Spirit, doctrine revealed reverently and faithfully exposing» [Can.1322§1]; Melchiorre X, On the theological, New York 1786, pp.88-93; R.-M.Schultes, history dogmatum, c.I, Lethielleux, Paris 1922; A.Gardeil, The revealed and Theology, Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1932; S.Cartechini, Dall'opinione to dogma. Value of theological notes, Editions "La Civilta Cattolica", Rome 1953; Y.Congar, The Liver and Theology, Unpaste, Tournai, 1962, pp.54-71; F.Marín-Sola, Homogeneous evolution of Catholic dogma, Madrid-Valencia 1963, cc.III to IV; G.Cavalcoli, The question of heresy today, Viverein editions, Rome 2008, pp.215-223.

[15] Cf Conc. Vat.II, Const. Dogm. Dei Verbum,cc.II e III.

[16] Of which speaks Maritain in the aforementioned September Lessons, pp.45-50.

[17] The Absolute in history, op.cit., p.61.

[18] CF Martin Luther. An ecumenical perspective, Queriniana, Brescia 2016, p.54.

[19] He misunderstands this proposal by Pope Francis, which did not relate to the essence of the Church, whose organizational center is clearly the Pope, but ecumenism.

[20] See the interesting analysis of the metaphysics of William of Ockham in T.Tyn Metaphysics of substance. Participation and analogy entis, Dominican Studio editions, Bologna 1991, pp.243-258.

[21] The dogma in the word of God, It. Queriniana, Brescia 1968, p.47.

[22] Cit., P.137.

[23] Ibid., p.65.

[24] Ibid., p.148.

[25] For this, admission, supported by Card.Kasper, of cases in which Holy Communion may be granted to divorced and remarried, It is not based, As I have argued on this site, that is at stake here simply ecclesiastical law, but it depends on whether he, because of his historicist epistemology, It can not accept the indissolubility of marriage as absolute and universal value.

[26] Phenomenology of Spirit, New Italy, Florence 1988, vol.I, p.27.

[27] See the steps Kasper in my book The mystery of the Redemption, Editions ESD, Bologna 2004, pp.321 and 325.

[28] THE DIALECTICS OF THE CHRISTOLOGY HEGEL, in sacred Doctrine, 6,1997, pp.87-140. It's not about The interchange of properties, because Kasper attributes the non-human to the divine nature as it is united to human nature in the Person of Christ ("God is dead", "God suffers"), but in the divine nature as such. For him, as Hegel, God is essentially human. Regardless man, God is not God. According to the idealistic coscienzialismo, God is God in human consciousness as thought by man. Everything in consciousness, nothing out of consciousness. It is, at the bottom of, the cogito Cartesian developed by Fichte.

[29] Jesus the Christ, Queriniana , Brescia 1975, p.231.

[30] Jesus the Christ, Ed.1981, pp.250-251.

[31] A.Livi, Vera and groundwater theology. How to distinguish the authentic "science of faith" as an equivocal "philosophy of religion", Leonardo da Vinci's publishing house, Rome 2012.

[32] The Absolute in History, op.cit., p.493.

[33] Ibid., p.503.

[34] Phenomenology of Spirit, op.cit., pp. 14,15.

[35]Ibid.

[36] Ibid., p.17.

[37] Ibid., p.26. The defect of the Hegelian theory of knowledge is the fact that the starting point of knowledge is not given the apparent affirmation, ie the sensitive thing that fronts the experience and reason, ie the object, but, on the contrary, by its negation: the object is an opposite to the subject, so the real is the fact that the subject, denying the object, identifies him again to himself. Cf. my article The denial of the truth of common sense in Hegel, in the certainty of truth, Collection of contributions by various authors by Antonio Livi, Leonardo da Vinci's publishing house, Rome 2013, pp.143-148.

[38] Metaphysics of substance. Participation and analogy entis, op.cit. p.875.

[39] It is strange that Luther has accused Aristotle of being a sophist, while the great sophist was him.

[40] The Absolute in history, op.cit., pp.493-494.

[41] The Absolute in history, op.cit., pp.491-492.

[42] Ibid., p.494.

[43] Ibid., pp. 494-495.

[44] Jesus the Christ, It. Queriniana, Brescia 1975, p.65.

[45] Therefore, When Jesus said that "only God is good" [MC 10,18], evidently it does not deny that the creatures are good [There 1, 10,13, 18, 21, 25] in their way over; but simply it means that only God is absolutely and infinitely good. Cf J. H.Nicolas, God known as unknown. Test of a critique of theological knowledge, Desclée Brewer, Paris 1966, pp.145-146.

[46] It should be infinite also the mode of being of this concept. But here there is only one proper Concept, which is the Logos.

[47] The Absolute in history, op.cit., p.491.

[48] Jesus the Christ 1981, p.253.

[49] Jesus the Christ 1981, p.256.

[50] Ibid. p.253

[51] Ibid., p.254

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid..254-255.

[55] Ibid.

[56] See my treatise The Mystery of Redemption, Dominican Studio editions, Bologna 2004.

[57] Ibid. p.65.

[58] Ibid., p.346.

[59] Ibid., p.66.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

.