The Church proclaims the cross and never alone never alone proclaims the joyful news of Christ's resurrection. Cross and resurrection are the units of a single event: the one who was despised on the cross, was also raised to glory. Proclaiming the martyrdom of the cross only praised the courage and selflessness A hero in favor of men, but would leave us without hope. Announce the resurrection only generate excitement but certainly leave us impervious to the fate of the crucified in history. Announcing the death and resurrection together, like the Gospels, we wish to proclaim the victory of life over death and the liberating burst of light from the darkness of oppression.
Leonardo Boff, theologian of Liberation (pictured right)
who follows this blog knows that the theological approach of the writer focuses on the life of the Christian message beyond the Christic, the commitment to the founding of the Kingdom of heavens, historically rejected efforts by the powerful clergy, who have always exploited their vital energies to take root, grow and become stronger in a world of inequality and injustice, thus relegating to the margins adeguandovisi and a Gospel message that these injustices and the inequalities would not, as an obstacle to the Kingdom 's love.
Why Christianity is not true to their commitment to "subvert" the world, and try to make a palingenesis as the foundation of humanity which had not religion as a guarantor of the change, but the commitment of every single man?
Leonardo Boff, theologian of Liberation (pictured right)
who follows this blog knows that the theological approach of the writer focuses on the life of the Christian message beyond the Christic, the commitment to the founding of the Kingdom of heavens, historically rejected efforts by the powerful clergy, who have always exploited their vital energies to take root, grow and become stronger in a world of inequality and injustice, thus relegating to the margins adeguandovisi and a Gospel message that these injustices and the inequalities would not, as an obstacle to the Kingdom 's love.
Why Christianity is not true to their commitment to "subvert" the world, and try to make a palingenesis as the foundation of humanity which had not religion as a guarantor of the change, but the commitment of every single man?
theologians who have addressed this issue have always been so embarrassing gave evasive answers, concerned, if not inspired by the most masochistic of doing good. Most of them, in fact, to justify the removal of historic Christianity from evangelical paradigm uses a deviant sociology , denial of the historical responsibilities of Christianity. In particular, the failure of historic Christianity is explained from the sociological concepts of "historical necessity " and " success", which are the pillars of the argument, very popular in traditional theological circles, that the progressive institutionalization of the Christian movement would have been inevitable, because to grow and survive in a hostile society, the early Christian communities and were forced to compromise with an unjust world and take on the traditional power structures existing in the society of late antiquity.
This unstoppable process of standardization of the alternative represented by the Christian communities of origin, is usually made to coincide with the rise of el'ingerenza Emperor Constantine I in the internal affairs of the Church. In reality, this process of adaptation is manifested almost immediately in the second half of the century, when it began to stabilize institutions such as the clergy, worship, sacraments, etc.. while the Christian movement lost its original revolutionary potential. However, even if in the first centuries of the Christian era the trend was the one just described, with great difficulty surviving community that resisted the Empire (the Asian churches to whom it is addressed the ' Revelation of John constitute the clearest example ), it is no coincidence that the Christian movement will still be persecuted by the imperial power on and off until the early fourth century. The decline therefore did not begin with Constantine, that the alliance between Church and Empire, but with the adoption by the confession most accommodating - one then emerge as Catholicism - the religious mentality, social and political empire, which was a mentality in sharp contrast to the Gospel message and that he had nailed to the cross, that mentality of a man who denounced it as satanic as opposed to God
This unstoppable process of standardization of the alternative represented by the Christian communities of origin, is usually made to coincide with the rise of el'ingerenza Emperor Constantine I in the internal affairs of the Church. In reality, this process of adaptation is manifested almost immediately in the second half of the century, when it began to stabilize institutions such as the clergy, worship, sacraments, etc.. while the Christian movement lost its original revolutionary potential. However, even if in the first centuries of the Christian era the trend was the one just described, with great difficulty surviving community that resisted the Empire (the Asian churches to whom it is addressed the ' Revelation of John constitute the clearest example ), it is no coincidence that the Christian movement will still be persecuted by the imperial power on and off until the early fourth century. The decline therefore did not begin with Constantine, that the alliance between Church and Empire, but with the adoption by the confession most accommodating - one then emerge as Catholicism - the religious mentality, social and political empire, which was a mentality in sharp contrast to the Gospel message and that he had nailed to the cross, that mentality of a man who denounced it as satanic as opposed to God
So the logical step theological intelligentsia is that without standardization, without de-sovvertizzazione, Christianity would not have survived to the story, then the "triumph" of Christianity on the History and its spread around the world owe it to her from time to time to adapt to social and political conditions that presented themselves, and to having expelled from its connotations of its original character alternative, opposition to the corrupt and unjust world. In this perspective, the price was the deviation from the source, the Gospel, to embrace the present, which is a mind that rejects the gospel and that is based on the solid alliance among all the structures of power and oppression.
The justification for the failure of the Christian movement in terms of winning on the History, if one side has a certain degree of validity, at least in terms of logic, the other does not explain the collective renunciation of the Christians to resolve the contradictions of the world. The Church has always benefited from this type of justificationism that, made, resulting in liability with respect to the world and its errors. Inside the church the only voices that rise up against the worldliness deleterious are represented by the theologians of liberation from feminist theologians, who allege that the Church "do not disturb", a friend of power and corruption, deaf and blind to the suffering of the world. Unfortunately, these voices crying in the wilderness have become ghettos and off to the sound of excommunication, clerical-conformist of the popularization of the Gospel and an army of clerics in the grip of the storm and the abuse of power. The thesis of hostility
revenge of history, the position relative gain the culture of late antiquity, it is obviously a cheap solution, a Pilate wash his hands, under which Christians, as now, it autoassolvono responsibilities that adherence to the Gospel means, because as correctly ruled Don First Mazzolari , " man missing man is unjust, the Christian who lacks the Christian is sacrilege." E 'sacrilege then ignore the fate of their brethren are persecuted, impoverished, marginalized by a society that none of it to take literally the new commandment that Christ give us, that friend your neighbor as yourself, whose application could, and can still subvert the world? It is sacrilege in the eyes of a Christian that the churches for several centuries have deliberately underestimated the centrality of loving one's neighbor, imposing silence those who, like the theologians of liberation, that commandment has taken seriously the lamp-making guide of its practice?
not that the idea of \u200b\u200bsuffering as a necessary purification of a world adrift has become the crutch of the inertia of Christians, of their complacency about History? It is for this reason, this call out of the story waiting for a beyond perfect, that we Christians have given up the utopia, the idea aldiquà a perfectible? It is for this reason that the theology of the cross, the instrument used by the Church for theological facilitate the acceptance of the status quo by the masses, collect as much success with the church hierarchy? After all, it is true or not true that a subversion of social order constituted all have something to lose, including the Church which draws its privileges by maintaining the same?
The justification for the failure of the Christian movement in terms of winning on the History, if one side has a certain degree of validity, at least in terms of logic, the other does not explain the collective renunciation of the Christians to resolve the contradictions of the world. The Church has always benefited from this type of justificationism that, made, resulting in liability with respect to the world and its errors. Inside the church the only voices that rise up against the worldliness deleterious are represented by the theologians of liberation from feminist theologians, who allege that the Church "do not disturb", a friend of power and corruption, deaf and blind to the suffering of the world. Unfortunately, these voices crying in the wilderness have become ghettos and off to the sound of excommunication, clerical-conformist of the popularization of the Gospel and an army of clerics in the grip of the storm and the abuse of power. The thesis of hostility
revenge of history, the position relative gain the culture of late antiquity, it is obviously a cheap solution, a Pilate wash his hands, under which Christians, as now, it autoassolvono responsibilities that adherence to the Gospel means, because as correctly ruled Don First Mazzolari , " man missing man is unjust, the Christian who lacks the Christian is sacrilege." E 'sacrilege then ignore the fate of their brethren are persecuted, impoverished, marginalized by a society that none of it to take literally the new commandment that Christ give us, that friend your neighbor as yourself, whose application could, and can still subvert the world? It is sacrilege in the eyes of a Christian that the churches for several centuries have deliberately underestimated the centrality of loving one's neighbor, imposing silence those who, like the theologians of liberation, that commandment has taken seriously the lamp-making guide of its practice?
not that the idea of \u200b\u200bsuffering as a necessary purification of a world adrift has become the crutch of the inertia of Christians, of their complacency about History? It is for this reason, this call out of the story waiting for a beyond perfect, that we Christians have given up the utopia, the idea aldiquà a perfectible? It is for this reason that the theology of the cross, the instrument used by the Church for theological facilitate the acceptance of the status quo by the masses, collect as much success with the church hierarchy? After all, it is true or not true that a subversion of social order constituted all have something to lose, including the Church which draws its privileges by maintaining the same?
For theology of the cross means a fundamentalist theological formulation of mold, that the focus of the Christian mystery, there is no resurrection, that Christ's victory over death inflicted by humanity, But his death and suffering as such as appendix fundamental reason for this is easy to see why the protesters have dubbed his "theology of death" and because this would intrude into a cult obsessed theology of the cross, both in terms of iconographic that symbolic terms. Recently, the theology of the cross, disgrace for years, was revived by our most learned pontiff, who with his operetta about Jesus, 'has reported the headlines by giving some repainting to make it more palatable to the faithful and to give a certain brio theological immobility that characterizes Catholic doctrine. This is, of course, the same old crap cared only for good theological and perpetual campaign.
The leitmotif of the theology of the cross is that Jesus chose to die in freedom by offering a sacrifice to save humanity from sin and that his death is not the natural outcome of a united humanity against him and against his message the kingdom of heaven. In a traditional theological Jesus is the innocent victim, the sacrificial lamb through whom the world is reconciled with God compared to this view, the theology of the cross contains an even more absurd: the redemption of humanity from Part of Jesus involves the suffering freely chosen; ergo, anyone who sacrifices himself or by spontaneous pain plays a saving in the case of Jesus for all mankind, in the case of other men for themselves. The consequence of this vision is sacrificial self-evident: the exaltation of the cross implies the exaltation of the suffering through which the world must go to atone for sin.
The leitmotif of the theology of the cross is that Jesus chose to die in freedom by offering a sacrifice to save humanity from sin and that his death is not the natural outcome of a united humanity against him and against his message the kingdom of heaven. In a traditional theological Jesus is the innocent victim, the sacrificial lamb through whom the world is reconciled with God compared to this view, the theology of the cross contains an even more absurd: the redemption of humanity from Part of Jesus involves the suffering freely chosen; ergo, anyone who sacrifices himself or by spontaneous pain plays a saving in the case of Jesus for all mankind, in the case of other men for themselves. The consequence of this vision is sacrificial self-evident: the exaltation of the cross implies the exaltation of the suffering through which the world must go to atone for sin.
Suffering becomes the ideal of a Christian life lived, it falls within the natural order of things, so we should not diminish it but accept it on behalf of self-sacrifice. Atonement and forgiveness then, are closely intertwined. Only with the purification through suffering the human being you earn God's forgiveness is like using a fallacy of this type is justified millennia of suffering and exploitation of man by man, here's how you switch easily from a theological symbol of the maturity of the believer and the sophistry Apology of violence!
A brilliant attempt to reconcile the theology of the cross and the theology of the kingdom was made by German theologian Moltmann with the development of his theology of hope that, similar to the messianism of Bloch, has recovered the eschatological element and has repositioned the center of Christianity. L ' eschatology it ceases to be a corollary and becomes the essence of Christianity. According to Moltmann, the Christian faith can not be reduced to an intimate, valid only in the private sphere, but is called to inspire hope in people to unlocking the gates of the kingdom of heaven. In practice, this opening of the gates of the kingdom of heaven, as we implement? According to Moltmann is essential to the liberation of man from those oppressive and authoritarian power structures that impede the realization of the Kingdom of heaven on earth. Moltmann is also strongly critical of the theology of the Cross in their enthusiasm to worship the cross as the ultimate expression of Christ as a fetish impotent, exclude the resurrection and the meaning behind it. The eviction of resurrection involves, ultimately, the ouster of the call of Christians to look to the future and to achieve this transformation through faith in the future resurrection of the dead.
A thought which is not very far from that of the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff , who argues that access to the true understanding of "sacrifice" of Jesus implies a revaluation of the resurrection in terms of redemption of all violent deaths suffered by innocent, that Jesus testifies to the wrongful death through their consecrated life a commitment to justice and whose prize was the resurrection . We too, then we have a model to follow, which is the sacrificial victim helpless on the cross, taking upon himself the injustice of the world, but the Risen One who has conquered death and that the promises as a free gift resurrection.
A thought which is not very far from that of the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff , who argues that access to the true understanding of "sacrifice" of Jesus implies a revaluation of the resurrection in terms of redemption of all violent deaths suffered by innocent, that Jesus testifies to the wrongful death through their consecrated life a commitment to justice and whose prize was the resurrection . We too, then we have a model to follow, which is the sacrificial victim helpless on the cross, taking upon himself the injustice of the world, but the Risen One who has conquered death and that the promises as a free gift resurrection.
0 comments:
Post a Comment