A theological evaluation of “revelation” in
other religions
Ratzinger, Joseph, “The Unity and
Diversity of Religions: The Place of Christianity in the History of Religions,”
in Truth and Tolerance. Christian Belief
and World Religions, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.
Answeres given by Chiemeka Utazi,
Comprehension questions
The phenomenon of religious pluralism
1.
Why
does Cardinal Ratzinger think that “a phenomenological investigation [of
religions] which would not straightaway concern itself with the value of these
religions for eternity… needs to precede such theological judgments about other
religions” (p. 18)?
Ans
Because the value of salvation has been looked at from
different religions as equal and the same; and so he thinks that, the inner
development and spiritual structure of other religions should be reviewed.
Theologians should not discuss the mere entity of religions, but evaluate the
historical developments and see whether any religion could present us with any
recognisable basic alternatives.
2.
Name
two possible attitudes towards other religions in the light of the Christian
conviction that Christ is the only Saviour and salvation of man?
Ans
The two attitudes are:
a)
A
partial recognition, under the heading of preparation, i.e. it recognises itself
as being linked with other religions in the unity of the concept of a covenant
relationship, and is convinced that cosmos and history, in their myth and
mystery, speak of God and can lead men to God.
b)
A
decided no or rejection; which sees in other religions a means by which man
seek to shield himself from God instead of leaving himself open to his demands.
3.
What
does the Christian rejection of gods signify? How is it viewed by the
secularised man of today?
Ans
The Christian rejection of gods signifies a choice to
be on the side of the rebels, who for the sake of his conscience dares to break
free from what is accustomed, instead of taking side with the conservative, who
keeps to the rules of play of his inherited institution.
First, the secularised man, will not be particularly
impressed, and will conclude that the recognition of other religions as having
provisional and preparatory character is a sign of arrogance.
On the other hand, he will see the rejection of other
religions as partisan and disputatious attitude towards them. He will view
Christianity as being incredibly blind as to be unable to see that in reality,
they are all one and the same.
4.
What
is the concept of religion held by “the man of today”?
Ans
The concept of religion held by the common person of
today is static, of religion that always very much a matter of symbols, heavily
spiritualised. He usually does not foresee any development from one religion to
another; rather, he expects each person to remain in his own and to experience
t with an awareness that it is, in its basic spiritual core, identical with all
the others.
5.
What
is the “future for religions” according to the thinking of Radhakrishnan?
And
The future of religion according to Radhakrishnan lies
in asking question to build our faith and in engaging in further scientific
research in order to gain a clearer idea of the meaning and direction of the
history of religion and the place of Christianity within it.
The Place of Christianity in the History of Religion
6.
What
is the first perception of the man of today when he looks at the plurality of
religions? What is the next impression?
Ans
The very first impression is that of a limitless
plurality, an absolutely overwhelming multiplicity and variety, which makes the
question about truth seem illusory from the very start.
Another impression is that of the hidden identity of
the religious worlds, which are distinguished from one another in name and
superficial images but not in the great fundamental symbols or in what thee
ultimately stand for.
7.
“This
mystical interpretation of religion forms the background of the idea of
religion of man today.” Elaborate on this statement.
Ans
Any religion that exists originates, so far as it is
genuine, in that form of inner experience of the divine that is experienced in
its final common form by mystics of all times and all places.
8.
According
to the mystical interpretation of religion, what is “first hand religion” and
what is “second hand religion”?
Ans
First hand religion is the direct form of mysticism,
while second hand religion is indirect form of knowledge only passed on from
the mystic, that is to say, as faith.
9.
Name
and explain the stages of development history of religion.
Ans
The first stage is the stage of early religion or
primitive stage. This stage lies in the transition from the scattered
experiences of the primitive, to a large-scale myth. It is the very first
stage, where religion is yet far from development and the systematic concept of
God worship is undeveloped.
The second stage is the mystical stage: the primitive
stage passes over its characteristics to the mystical stage, where the most
varied experiences are brought into a coherent overall view.
One thing common is that neither of the stages has
anything to do with mysticism in the more limited sense, but both together
constitute the broad preliminary field in the history of religion, which
constitutes the remaining significant as an underlying current beneath it all.
10.
What
are the three ways of moving beyond the myth of religions?
Ans
1.
In
the form of mysticism, in which the myth, as a merely symbolic form, is
stripped of its illusion and the absolute value of an unnameable experience is
set up. In fact, then mysticism proves to be conservative of myth, providing a
new foundation for the myth, which is now interpreted as a symbol of the
reality.
2.
The
second form is that of monotheistic revolution, which is seen in its classic
form in Israel. Here the myth is rejected as man-made and lacking authority.
The absolute nature of the divine call that is issued through the prophet is
maintained.
3.
Thirdly,
there is enlightenment, which first happened properly on a large scale in
Greece: here the myth is outgrown as a prescientific form of knowledge, and
rational knowledge is set up as the absolute value. Religion and religious
values become meaningless; at best, they continue to perform a purely formal
function as political ceremonials.
Mysticism and belief
11.
What
is the Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions?
Ans
The Christian approach is to mysticism is that of a
radical path in the history of religion. It is an attitude that does not
tolerate any other element superior to itself, but regards the imageless,
un-metaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative
and ultimate reality in the realm of religion.
12.
Why
is the monotheism of Israel a sort of “revolution” in the history of religion?
Ans
The monotheism of Israel is embodied on the prophet
(not in on the mystic), for whom the decisive thins is, not identifying with,
but standing over against the God who calls and who commands. In other words,
it contrasts with mysticism, as belonging to an independent stepping forth from
the confines of myth.
13.
How
is the monotheism of Israel different from that of Hinduism of ATR?
Ans
Monotheism in India is different from that of Israel
in two ways:
First, it is directed toward mysticism, that is to
say, it is open to monistic development and thus may appear as a mere
preliminary stage to something of more permanence, that is, the experiencing of
identity.
Second, the monotheism of Israel had its origin by way
of a revolution, while that of India, is by evolution. In consequence, the gods
of Indian monotheism were never overthrown; rather a peaceful balance between
varying forms came about, as between God and the gods, between monotheistic and
polytheistic beliefs.
14.
How
does monotheism and mysticism differ from each other radically? What is the
core of their difference?
Ans
In mysticism, inwardness holds the first place; spiritual
experience is posited as an absolute. That includes the view that God is purely
passive in relation to man and that the content of religion can only consist of
man plunging into God. God does not act; there is only the mysticism of men,
the gradual ascent to union.
The monotheistic way starts from a conviction that is
opposite: Here man is the passive element upon whom God acts; here it is man,
who can do nothing of himself, but instead we have here an activity on the part
of God, a call from God, and man opens himself to salvation through obedience
in response to the call.
The core of their difference can be expressed in the
exact opposite: that monotheism is a form of arrested mysticism. The mystics
have a concept of identity and the reduction of the person to the impersonal
state that is bound up with it, while the monotheists hold that the contrary
reduction is correct: i.e. the reduction of everything impersonal to persons.
The structure of the two great ways of Religion
15.
What
does Jean Daniélou say about Christianity in contrast to the great non-Christian
religions?
Ans
Jean Daniélou says, that Christianity “is essentially faith in an
event.”
16.
Mention
the obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the
great founders of East Asian religions. What does this say about the structure
of the way of mysticism and belief in one God?
And
The obvious difference lies in the personalities found
in the actors in the covenant event in Israel and the mystical experience of
the Eastern Asian religions. The patriarchs and prophets were violent and
present a violent God, who can be seen and commands, while the God of the bible
is not seen, but is experienced.
In mysticism, God remains passive and does not act;
there is only the mysticism of men plunging to God, the gradual ascent to
union. While in the belief in one God, there is an activity on the part of God,
a call from God, and man opens himself to salvation through obedience in
response to the call.
17.
Why
does Christianity not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion”
and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism?
Ans
Christianity does not recognise the distinction
because Christianity believes in divine call, which supersedes any mystical
experience, and in which everyone who believes is in the same situation.
Christianity believes that each one is called in the same way, and so there is
no distinction
18.
In
brief, what is the place of Christianity in the history of religions?
Ans
Christianity does not believe that the history of
religion is a vicious circle that is not in touch with the essential. It holds
the history of religion to be a genuine history, a path whose direction we call
progress, and whose attitude we call hope. And so, Christianity took the place of
service, as the one who hopes, who infallibly knows that through every failure
and all human discord, the end of history is being fulfilled.
No comments:
Post a Comment