Search

In this contribution, it is argued that Joseph Ratzinger had a profound influence on the Christology and specifically resurrection belief of the Catholic Church. This is evident in the way Ratzinger approached the challenge and relevance of Jesus’ question, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ For Ratzinger, the reality of the incarnatory event means that the Christian faith is about a person, and thus, it is historical as well. In this sense, history for Ratzinger becomes more than just a succession of human events. It also includes God’s act in history. Jesus Christ manifested God concretely. In the same light, for Ratzinger, the Church concretely manifested Jesus Christ. Hence, for Ratzinger, thinking with the Church is essential for a proper exegesis or hermeneutics. Because of that, tradition and Scripture are essential to Ratzinger’s Christological thought. In the teachings of the Church fathers and the lives of the saints, he finds a concrete manifestation of Jesus’ teaching as contained in the New Testament. Thus, his spiritual Christology results from his meditation on the fathers, saints and some contemporary theologians that makes Ratzinger’s Christological thought to be both ancient and new. This contribution highlights a Christological approach that values the historical and brings it into conversation with the theological. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This research represents intradisciplinary work within the field of Christian Theology, connecting aspects of Catholic Theology to hermeneutical methodology and what is known as a Christology ‘from above’. It connects a historical and theological perspective within systematic theology to highlight the ways in which the Pope and theologian Joseph Ratzinger influenced resurrection belief within the Catholic Church.

The article presents the fundamental ecclesiology of the contemporary Catholic theologian Salvador Pie-Ninot (*1941). The text shows the way in which he solves the question of the credibility of the Church and the attitudes of private Christianity with its negative attitude towards the Church (believing without belonging). Pie-Ninot underlines that the credibility of the Church is dependent on revelation and that the character of faith is ecclesial. He interconnects the last two councils: the concept of the Church, whose divine character is approachable by man (via empirica, the way of experience) as it is taught by the First Vatican Council, with the ecclesial stances of the Second Vatican Council, which reduces the emphasis on the attributes of the Church in favour of revelation, the person of Jesus Christ and a personal relationship to him. Pie-Ninot then offers the way of testimony, which includes the outer (for example, apostolic tradition) and inner form of churchly reality (personal life according to the demands of the Gospel) and perceives the Church as a privileged space of God’s revelation and salvation.

In this study devoted to other aspects of Hus’s attitude to the mystery of Eucharist, the author extends his results presented in the previous article, which was mainly focused on the orthodoxy of the Bethlehem preacher’s teaching. The respect to the truth demands to discuss also Hus’s non-conformist preaching on the level of “the Service of the Word”. There can be found some disputable points, the most controversial of which is the claim that grave sinners should be regarded as heretics. After that, the author discusses the consubstantialism of Jacob of Mies, and, on the basis of the observations, he concludes that he cannot univocally condemn Jacob’s attitudes as heretical. In the third point, he focuses on the Hus’s role in the so called Wilsnack Affair. In the concluding part of the study, the dramatic attitude of the Bethlehem preacher to the offering Communion under both kinds to the laity is presented.

The consistent systematic-theological approach of the paper can be enriching for the scholars of various fields interested in the topic. The work is not aimed to retell the past; it’s goal is to present the past in the most just way as possible on the level of catholic dogmatics. Firstly, the author describes contemporary concept of transsubstantial model of describing Eucharistic Mystery and refers to the connections between this doctrine and christology on the one hand and ecclesiology on the other. On this basis, he arrives at a new appraisal of Hus’s teachings and also of consubstantiation, which catholic theology need not necessarily perceive as heterodox. Apart from that, it shows that Hus’s essentially orthodox teaching could shed light upon his controversial ecclesiology.

This paper introduces and reflects upon methodological merits of the author’s long-standing work on a book dedicated to the topic of Czech Catholic theology’s reaction from 1850 to 1950 to the challenges posed by natural science in the world-wide and interdisciplinary context. It is demonstrated that there is no tension on the axis theology vs. natural science, but on the axis theistic vs. atheistic world-view. The author rejects ideologisation of theology and natural science. In theology, this topic is in the competence of fundamental theology, where a new discipline of “theology of natural science” should be established. Therefore, it should be integrated into dogmatic theology as well, esp. to the treatise on God the Creator and on the qualities of the Triune Creature. V tomto příspěvku autor představuje a domýšlí metodologické přínosy vyplývající z několikaleté práce na monografii, která je věnována problematice reakce české katolické teologie 1850–1950 na výzvy přírodních věd, a to v širším světovém i interdisciplinárním kontextu. Ukazuje se, že napětí neexistuje na ose teologie – přírodní vědy, nýbrž na ose teistický – ateistický světonázor. Autor důsledně odmítá ideologizaci teologie i přírodních věd. V teologii spadá tato tematika přednostně do kompetence fundamentální teologie, v jejímž rámci by se měla ustavit nová disciplína „teologie přírodních věd“, následně také do dogmatické teologie, a to do pojednání o Bohu stvořiteli a do traktátu o vlastnostech trojjediného Stvořitele.