A theological evaluation of “revelation” in other religions
Comprehension questions
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.
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)?
In Ratzinger’s idea, one should seek the overall concept of a religion with its inner development and spiritual structure. He should, first of all, try to study, to examine, and to see whether there is any continuous historical development which can be evaluated in such a religion. We ought to first of all to seek an overall view of whole panorama of religions, with its inner development and spiritual structure
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?
The first attitude of a Christian towards other religions could be seen in two ways: positive and negative. The first attitude is a positive attitude whereby other religions are seen as a preparation towards perfection which is Christianity. That is to say those religions are still in the process of becoming.
The second attitude is a negative attitude whereby other religions are seen as anti-Christians., as religions that lead people away from the ultimate truth, to believe that they are save while they are not. Here Christians hold that salvation is possible only for Christians.
3. What does the Christian rejection of gods signify? How is it viewed by the secularised man of today?
A Christian rejection of gods could be seen as a rebellious attitude, as a person who, in order to maintain his conscience, try to break free with what is accustomed. But for man of today, this seems to be an arrogant attitude, an expression of the partisan and disputatious attitude, one trying to assert itself at the expense of other but unable to see that in reality all religions are one and the same. For him no religion has truth in its absolute.
4. What is the concept of religion held by “the man of today”?
Today’ man has a concept of religion that is always very much a matter of symbols, heavily spiritualized. Religion appears as a world of symbols, which despite the ultimate unity of the language of human symbols.
5. What is the “future for religions” according to the thinking of Radhakrishnan?
Radhakrishnan view for the future for religion is that there will be a religion of the spirit which will bring the unity of all religion, that is to say a religion that will be able to unit fundamental unity with the most varied differentials
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?
The perception of the man today, he begins to look beyond the limits of his own is that of a limitless plurality, an absolutely overwhelming multiplicity and variety, which makes the question about truth seem illusory from the very start.
7. “This mystical interpretation of religion forms the background of the idea of religion of man today.” Elaborate on this statement.
the articulate and formally expressed religion of many world thus be secondhand religion, a mere sharing in a mystical experience that is in itself formless; it would be the secondary translation of this into multifarious and changing language of forms, but without any real significance of its own. It is clear that this mystical interpret of religion forms the background for the ideas of religion of man today.
8. According to the mystical interpretation of religion, what is “first hand religion” and what is “second hand religion”?
Firsthand, religion is the direct experience of God in the mystical form, i.e. direct form of coming in contact with God. While in the second hand religion the knowledge of God is passed on. There is no really personal experience of God (no significant of its own).
9. Name and explain the stages of development history of religion.
There is first of all the stage of early (so- called primitive) religion, which passes over into the stage of mythical religion, in which the most varied experiences of the early stage are brought into a coherent overall view of things.
The first great step in the history of religion lies in the transition forms the scattered experiences of the primitive stage to large-scale myth, then the second and decisive step, determinative for present day religion, lies in leaving the confines of myth. This step has historically occurred in three different ways.
10. What are the three ways of moving beyond the myth of religions?
In the form of mysticism
The second form is monotheistic revolution
The third is enlightenment
Mysticism and belief
11. What is the Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions?
“Mysticism” is here understood in a more radical sense, as one path in the history of religion, as an attitude that does not tolerate any other element superior to itself; rather, it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate in the realm of religion.
12. Why is the monotheism of Israel a sort of “revolution” in the history of religion?
The model, in which the monotheistic revolution is embodied, on the contrary, is not the mystic but the prophet. For him, the decisive thing is, not identifying with, but standing over against the God who calls and who commands. Thereby we can finally explain why we heve thus far continually talked about a momotheistic “revolution”.
13. How is the monotheism of Israel different from that of Hinduism of ATR?
Monotheism in India is different from that of Israel in two ways: firstly, 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. Secondly, it rose, not through a revolution, as in Israel, but through an evolution; in consequence, the gods were never over-thrown; rather a peaceful balance between varying forms came about, as between God and gods, between monotheistic and Polytheistic.
14. How does monotheism and mysticism differ from each other radically? What is the core of their difference?
The core difference between monotheism and mysticism is based on the passivity of the divine and the activity of man on one hand and the activity of God and the passivity of man on the other. What does it mean? In mysticism, it is man who plunges into God. God does not act. He is purely passive in relation to man. Whereas, in the monotheism God is the one who took initiative, he is the one who calls. Man is the passive element upon whom God acts.
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?
He has shown this fact with great emphasis, stressing again and again that Christian “is essentially faith in a event”, Whereas the great non- Christian religions maintain to the world of time.
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?
The obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great founders of East Asian religions becomes comprehensible on the basis of the principle outline.
17. Why does Christianity not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism?
Christianity does not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism because that kind of mystical experience is also found in other religions. So it does not deal with the real distinctions. The distinction of such can exist but it is merely a secondary distinction because it does not distinguish religions according to their possession of religious reality and mere borrowed piety. That is, it does not give the essence of religion. The main issue is not one’s own experience but the divine call and each is being called in the same way. While in mysticism, the mystic alone has the first-hand and other believers second-hand, in contrary only God deals with first-hand. All men without exception are called: they are servants of the divine call.
18. In brief, what is the place of Christianity in the history of religions?
“In the olden days God spoke to our ancestors in the dream and through the prophets but in our own time he has spoken to us through his son.” It is God who seeks man, who comes to dwell among his people. This apex of self-manifestation surpasses every kind of mysticism. When the Magi found Jesus, did not the religion knelt before Christ, as it were, in their persons, recognizing itself as provisional or rather as proceeding towards Christ. Instead of clinging to the mystical experience which may not have sole validity, Christianity teaches the absolute value of the divine call which has been made audible in Christ. It is he who brings salvation to me and whoever believes stand at higher level than the great ascetics. As Jean Daniélou would say that there may be great religious personality outside Christianity but that means nothing, what counts is obedience to the Word of Christ. Other religions are seen as a preparation towards perfection which is Christianity
No comments:
Post a Comment