Rorate Caeli

"Christ did not die for the sins of the people..."

"Christ did not die for the sins of the people": Head of German Catholic Bishops' Conference on TV
By Hilary White

FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.

Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."

Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."

The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch was appointed to the See of Freiburg im Breisgau in 2003 under Pope John Paul II. He is he sitting Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference, to which he was elected in 2008 and is regarded as a "liberal" in the German episcopate.

In February 2008 he said that priestly celibacy should be voluntary and that it is not "theologically necessary." Zollitsch has also said he accepts homosexual civil unions by states, but is against same-sex "marriage."

He told Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard, the program's host, that God gave "his own son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony to show: 'So much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation'."

"He has become involved with me out of solidarity - from free will."

Christ, he said, had "taken up what I have been blamed for, including the evil that I have caused, and also to take it back into the world of God and hence to show me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."

However, Article 613 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the definitive work issued by the Church explaining the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic religion, describes the death of Christ as "both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world', the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the 'blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'."

The Catechism continues, "This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience."

To express concerns:

Congregation for Bishops
Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal Prefect
Palazzo della Congregazioni, 00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Phone: 06.69.88.42.17
Fax: 06.69.88.53.03

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
William Joseph Levada, Cardinal Prefect
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11,
00193 Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
Fax: 06.69.88.34.09

92 comments:

Anonymous said...

Open and public heresy....how sad. Let us pray for this man's soul.
Thus the fruits of Modernism.

Rick DeLano said...

And this man is allowed to issue perjorative allegations as to the catholicity of Bishop Williamson?

State of emergency, thy name is Zollitsch.

Prodinoscopus said...

The New Springtime in full bloom.

What will Pope Benedict XVI do?

Anonymous said...

This is time for Rome to step in and get rid of him.

Anonymous said...

Mr. DeLano makes a very good point, I'm afraid. A material heretic is in control of a Catholic diocese. Do the real Catholics there have a right--even an obligation--to avoid his churches as a spiritual plague? What would St. Athanasius say?

P.K.T.P.

Alexander said...

Another JPII liberal bishop appointment? Was he totally oblivious?

Yet again one of the great fears of St. Pius X: a Modernist Bishop.

These are the kinds of bishops that go unpunished. Where is the Pope? Will he do something? If not will we ever get a Pope that will instead of these “I’m a nice-guy Pope” of the past 40+ years?

Neal said...

Per the Catholic Dictionary:

HOLOCAUST
Among the Israelites and even now among many non-Christian believers, an offering entirely consumed by fire... [Holocausts] were means of atonement for sin, and they foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

So Christ is the holocaust par excellence, an article of faith which the bishop appears to deny. How ironic.

Prodinoscopus said...

The German Catholic Bishops' Conference says that no one can be a member of the Catholic Church if they question the historical record of the fate of the Jews during World War II.

The chairman of the same German Catholic Bishops' conference openly denies the most fundamental tenet of the Catholic Faith.

DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION.

Garrett said...

Surely this is the last straw. This man needs to be stripped of his office and sent to do penance for the remainder of his earthly life in some remote monastery.

At the very least, he cannot continue to be an official shepherd of the faithful.

I know that Pope Benedict doesn't like to flex his muscles when it comes to bishops expressing their opinions, but I would be very surprised if the Vatican does not respond to this publicly espoused heresy.

Louis E. said...

I recall reading that Archbishop Zollitsch was elected president of the conference in defiance of the Pope's preference for his more orthodox newly-named second successor in Munchen und Freising,Reinhard Marx.His term is up just before he reaches retirement age in 2013,perhaps appointments made between now and then would prevent his reelection.

Dan Hunter said...

Wow!
I never knew God was a Liberation Theologian!

Ya just learn sumpthin' new ebry day.

Man, if the Church is not in an emergency state now, I am a twelve testicled spider monkey.

Anonymous said...

"What will Pope Benedict do?"

Nothing!

Prodinoscopus said...

Garrett, yet we've seen that Pope Benedict XVI is not afraid to flex his muscles in the case of Bishop Williamson, who has been barred from participation in the doctrinal discussions.

If the Pope does not act in the case of this shameful display of public heresy by a Catholic bishop, he will definitely see large numbers of SSPX adherents follow their recently expelled priests into the desert. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them.

hithlin said...

I wonder, if a priest believes in this way, is he still capable of offering valid Eucharist?

Hebdomadary said...

This is pure EVIL. If this act doesn't get a prelate excommunicated, I don't know what will. Rome has to act.

Paul Haley said...

This is preposterous and goes against everything that I've been taught as a Catholic in 16 years of catholic education. May Almighty God forgive this man his sins. His Holiness needs to take cognizance of this and remove this man from his position.

Ottaviani said...

Yes, another lunatic in charge of the asylum. Springtime "renewal" in action.

Paul Haley said...

This is proof positive that a state of necessity continues to exist in the Church today. There can be no other conclusion that one can come to and the Holy Father must act to reinforce the Faith of all Catholics who were taught that Christ died for our sins and to re-open the gates of heaven, closed since Adam's fall.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus said...

"DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION."

Excellent two word summary of the situation!!

Anonymous said...

A good example of a 'case of necessity' for the SSPX. Pray for the priests in this heretic's diocese that they may find the courage to be Catholic.

tomm said...

I won't be surprised if this heretical statement is overlooked. Just another day in the new springtime of VC2. We have seen such things before and what has the Pope done? I earnestly hope and pray I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me this crossed the line into full scale apostasy.

C_of_D

Anonymous said...

Scandal.

Anonymous said...

It would be entirely appropriate for this individual to be removed from office by force.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus said...
What will Pope Benedict XVI do?

Mark my words well–NOTHING!

Anonymous said...

We have this case in Canada of Fr. Raymond Gravel, who is a wild heretic and is being protected by his Bishop, Gilles Lussier of Joliette. Gravel is now interviewed constantly. it is said that he is better known than any bishop in Quebec, including the two Cardinals.

Gravel argued on television for the legalisation of abortion and inverted marriage. He was debating with a mullah and the mullah had to defend the positions of the Catholic Church whilst a supposed Catholic priest attacked those teachings. What could be more embarrassing to the Pope? I can't think of anything.

A journalist uncovered the fact that, immediately before Gravel entered seminary, he was a male prostitute who worked in a 'gay leather bar'. The story was published and Gravel does not deny it. On the contrary, he has been promoting sexual inversion ever since he was ordained.

He ran for office in the Canadian Parliament and was elected, even though the Holy See never gave him the leave that is required. Once elected, he voted against a bill which would have given some minimal protection to unborn babies (by treating mother and child as separate persons if the mother were attacked). He did this after he had publicly undertaken not to oppose Church teaching in Parliament.

At the last general election, Rome ordered him to make a choice: either to be a politician or continue to serve as a priest. He chose the latter and is now a Parish Priest at Repentigny (a proper name which, ironically, has 'repent' in it), a position from which he continues to promote sexual inversion.

Recently, Life Site News discovered that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has been funding abortion by giving financial contributions to the Church's Justice and Peace group. We knew the Justice and Peace miscreants were communists; we didn't know that their hands are covered in unborn babies' blood as well. You learn something every day. The Justice and Peace gang had been supporting abortion-rights groups. When this became public, Gravel also went public, arguing not that the Canadian bishops didn't know but that they ought to support abortion and were therefore doing a holy thing.

Some years ago, one and only one prelate tried to remove Raymond Gravel. His name was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Once elected Pope, however, Benedict XVI became too entangled in other matters. Obviously, the task of correcting Gravel fell to Cardinals Levada and Re. Nothing has happened. Surprised? Not.

Gravel admitted in an interview that, did he not have the support of his Bishop, Gilles Lussier of Joliette, he'd have been defrocked long ago.

These bishops are untouchable. They do and foster what is abominable and nobody stops them. But when Bishop Williamson contradicts the secular press on a matter of history, all hell breaks loose. I hope that bloggers here can see the problem. The problem is massive hypocrisy at the centre.

To see the recent scandals on Gravel and the Canadian Bishops's funding abortion through Injustice and Peacelessness, go here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042101.html


P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Raymond Gravel.

In my last post, I suggested that this matter of Gravel falls to Cardinals Levada and Re. I've realised that this is wrong, it falls to Levada and Hummes. Cardinal Hummes is the Prefect for Clergy; Cardinal Re, for Bishops. And Gravel is not a bishop (although he's treated by the secular press as if he were the Pope).

And who is Cardinal Hummes? He's the liberation theology (read communist) former Archbishop of Sao Paulo. The Pope 'kicked him upstairs' to get him out of Brazi.

So, now, Gilles Lussier, radical Bishop of Joliette is talking to Claudio Cardinal Hummes, communist Prefect for Clergy, about Raymond Gravel, pro-abortionist priest. It's like Lenin talking to Stalin about Karl Marx.

No wonder Gravel is protected.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In regard to Zöllitsch, look on the bright side. He has just undermined his own authority, making it harder for him to attack the S.S.P.X. When he does so, the Society can say, Oh, a comment from that pagan who denies the propitiatory Sacrifice; a comment from a proven heretic!

It's hard to imagine how much further Zölitsch could have gone. Perhaps, next time, he could 'point out' that no such man as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived on this planet; that He was not an 'historical person'. Why not? It reminds me of a humourous episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" in which Sir Humphrey Appleby suggests that the Pope appoint an atheist as Archbishop of Canterbury. Hacker scoffs and tells him that he's never heard of such thing. Sir H. replies that that's because they don't *call* them atheists. It is polite and diplomatic to call them Modernists and it's done all the time.

P.K.T.P.

crusader88 said...

This man is worse than Luther!

Joe B said...

Maybe so, but he has jurisdiction. Don't be confessing to SSPX priests in his diocese, because he has jurisdiction and they don't.

(Have faith. SSPX and all other trad priests working out of charity for souls in this crises have supplied jurisdiction.)

Anonymous said...

May I suggest one of the many distinguished readers of this blog, one whose name is known by the Holy Father, and who knows his missive will be read, pick up his pen and write a physical letter to Benedict regarding this outrage.

I don't know who you are, but surely you're out there. Please, act now.

~ Belloc

Anonymous said...

How about email addresses for these Vatican officials??? What other servers can we jam?

Anonymous said...

Doesn't this bishop automatically lose his office when he openly professes heresy? He really is not a bishop anymore, right?

Marcos Vinícius Mattke said...

So sad... so sad... I hope he'll be punished... It cannot be ignorated, it just can't.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Doesn't this bishop automatically lose his office when he openly professes heresy? He really is not a bishop anymore, right?

Maybe he was never really a bishop!

j hughes dunphy said...

Dear Rorate:
More of the Great Apostasy, Heresy, and the spirit of Vatican II!

Is anyone really surprised from the German Bishops?
sadly,
j hughes dunphy
www:http//orthodoxromancatholic.com

Jordanes said...

Although all of the commenters so far have found Bishop Zollitsch guilty of heresy in this matter, I have to withhold judgment until I can see a good English translation of the entire German-language interview. From the way it looks, Bishop Zollitsch sounds like he doesn't exactly know what he's talking about (to put it nicely) -- but then with the information supplied to us so far, none of us can know what he's talking about. Before he is condemned as a heretic, let's get all the facts first.

Someone asked: Doesn't this bishop automatically lose his office when he openly professes heresy? He really is not a bishop anymore, right?*** I'm not sure, but Canons 192-195 do not seem to allow for automatic loss of office due to open profession of heresy. Canon 194.1.2 says "a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church" is "removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself." However, Canon 194.2 says that removal "can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority." That sounds like it would take a formal finding that Bishop Zollitsch is a heretic for him to be removed from office. Merely saying something heretical in a t.v. interview would probably not be enough to trigger an automatic removal from office.

But then I'm not a canon lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v. Perhaps someone who actually knows what he's talking about could chime in.

Someone else said: Maybe he was never really a bishop!*** Anything's possible, I suppose. Maybe the earth will explode this Saturday. Or maybe not.

Jordanes said...

There's some interesting commentary on this over at Creative Minority Report, and a link to the video of the interview at Catholic Church Conservation.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/
2009/04/bishop-denied-christ-died-for-our-sins.html

(Carriage return inserted into the URL at ".com/" to prevent the URL from running off the side.)

Anonymous said...

This is a direct contradiction to Pope Benedict's stated goal in writing "Jesus of Nazareth." Not primarily for that reason, it is likely this will not go unnoticed by Rome. This kind of statement from episcopal members is no longer tenable. We no longer live in the rebellious period. We're living in the hazy aftermath, in which, to the despairing ears of the Western world, such lucidly stated untruths ring as hollow as the truth. It makes me think of Nietzche roaming about a ruined city stating matter-of-factly to the survivors that God is dead. Does anyone who bought the lie originally care now?

Anonymous said...

Poetic Justice.

You see, Bishop Zöllitsch, you just never know what trick question some nasty journalist will catch you out with! You have a fellow bishop from England who knows all about it! Perhaps you could approach him and ask him how to foster the cardinal virtue of prudence.

Of course, if you've really said what they report, you will not be 'allowed' to 'exercise ministry' until you recant and apologise. In conscience, the leaders of the S.S.P.X cannot enter into discussions with people who are no more Catholic than is Osama bin Laden. He denies that the Crucifixion was a propitiatory sacrifice too!

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

A bit too clever a comparison, Mr. Perkins. But we still don't know what Bishop Zollitsch actually said or meant, quite unlike Bishop Williamson's statements. Based on what has been reported, I'm uncertain that Bishop Zollitsch really asserted that "the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven," as Lifesite claims he said.

RC said...

That quote above is a mistranslation.

He said that Christ "did not die for the sins of man because God needed a victim, that is, a scapegoat, for sin."

He's not rejecting the atonement -- just an image of it that portrays God the Father as vengeful while the Son is merciful. He's following an Eastern-Church view of the atonement.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"This kind of statement from episcopal members is no longer tenable. We no longer live in the rebellious period..."

Why don't you come here to Manila?

filip said...

You can watch this interview:

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=25131

Anonymous said...

On Anonymous's last statement. It's another reason I love the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" B.B.C. shows so much. Sir Humphrey Appleby behaves as though an anti-truth were an unquestionable standard--a fact so obvious that it would look inane to mention it directly. In his world, the anti-truth is at least as obviously correct is as the truth was in the Ages of Faith. So, when (Prime) Minister Hacker suggests that the Government ought to act virtuously, Humprhey often reacts as if this is the most bizarre thing he's ever heard: Heaven forbid, Prime Minister, that we should act virtuously: anything but that!

And so Humphrey can say in his unctuous way, as if he's teaching an ignorant child, that Truth doesn't matter, only appearances count. Our bishops were recently men who betrayed the Church while at least playing lip-service to her teachings. But Cardinals Mahony and Turcotte and Daneels--and many others--princes of the Church--have now become leaders of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and partisans of the French Revolution.

We are now witnessing an entry into this new world. It is no longer NewChurch but Anti-Church. Now Le Devoir has found that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is actually funding abortion advocacy as it continues to condemn abortion (mildly and at least occasionally). The bishops are no longer simply turncoats. They are now generals on the other side. Soon, we shall need to declare our implacable rejection of them just to prove that we are still Catholic.

P.K.T.P.

JSarto said...

This heretic should be invited to be member of the portuguese episcopal conference.
About the Pope, I'm afraid he won't do anything in this case...

Anonymous said...

Whatever Zoellitsch's errors are/may be in regard to other matters, he's right about celibacy. Hilary White should not be treating his opinion on that as if it were a theological (or even worse, dogmatic) error.

Anonymous said...

How can this heretic be left in office even one more day?

Anonymous said...

To: Carlos Palad

I have heard a similar statement from a supposed top Jesuit theolgian from the Philippines.p

Paul Haley said...

I have to agree with Jordanes that the translation of Bishop Zollitch's remarks is so profoundly ridiculous and preposterous for a Catholic bishop that a properly verifiable translation is necessary. However, that said, this translation, if allowed to stand by the Holy See, literally cries out for suspension or removal from office.

When I first read it, my thought was - this cannot be for real but the longer it stands out there without any sort of refutation, the more scandalous it becomes. Right now, all I can say is: Egads, it boggles the mind!

Jordanes said...

He's not rejecting the atonement -- just an image of it that portrays God the Father as vengeful while the Son is merciful. He's following an Eastern-Church view of the atonement.*** Someone over at Creative Minority Report made a similar suggestion: that Bishop Zollitsch wasn't denying that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sins, but that he was perhaps meaning to reject the erroneous penal substitution theory.

But we can't know for sure until we have an accurate and complete, in-context translation and appraisal of his comments. Until then let's suspend judgment and not be so quick to condemn.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Actually, I think public denial of a fundamental tenet of Christian dogma makes one a "formal" not "material" heretic.

technically.

Dan Hunter said...

Here is a link to "Gloria TV", that has a video of the Bishops denial of Christs atonement for sin:

http://gloria.tv/?media=25210

Tinchus said...

As some of you suggested, I will give this man the benefit of the doubt until a full translation becomes available.

But... if he meant what I understood at first sight... then he must be removed from his office. He is not only the pastor of a Diocese but also the head of a national conference of bishops! The spiritual damage that he can cause from such position is enourmous.

I admit that after a second reading, I think that maybe he might have been speaking against penal substitution... But even if this is true, the terms in which he did it are very ambiguous and could definitely cause serious confusion among the faithfull. At least, he should be asked for a clarification.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

That quote above is a mistranslation.

He said that Christ "did not die for the sins of man because God needed a victim, that is, a scapegoat, for sin."
The sentence referred to here is not a "mistranslation" it is called "writing". I wrote the sentence in the introductory paragraph of the article as a means of describing, accurately I hoped, the Catholic dogma which was being allegedly denied by the bishop.

If you will read the article again, you will see that I made no claim that the bishop had said those words or that they are a paraphrase of what he said. I was describing as accurately as I could manage, the Catholic dogma.

Speaking of "mistranslations"...

John McFarland said...

If you look into the relevant back numbers of the Angelus and SiSiNoNo, and look into Father Doermann's analyses of the "trinitarian" encylicals of John Paul II in his "Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey," and the SSPX pamphlet on the liturgical reform, I think you'll find that Bishop Zollitsch's comments are just a more forthright version of what both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict appear to believe.

The propitiary sacrifice is not part of the Johanno-Pauline-Benedictine agenda.

Sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis.
Mater boni consilii, ora pro nobis.

LeonG said...

For those who believe that Rome will implement affirmative action against real heretics they will be bitterly disappointed. Under post-conciliar church no one is condemned except traditionalists even when they only utter an inconsequential statement about numbers of genocide victims in a war much much greater than a single issue that it has been willfully reduced to. But, of course, this type of statement is neo-heresy under the neo-modernist regime that is contemporary Rome. Did we not witness the unprecedented & unrighteous indignation from The Vatican itself over this trivial matter?

That The Christ is a mere politico-humanitarian sympathiser with the human condition is an admirable neomodernist sentiment worthy of this synthesis of all heresies. That no pope will directly confront such appalling public treachery is reminiscent of the fact that some agnostic social democratic types like Tony Blair have received the NO host, while still a sectarian protestant, in the papal private chapel; have been unjustifiably welcomed into the NO post-conciliar church and are now accusing the church he has joined of "entrenched" perspectives. Interesting that Cormack-Murphy, another archepiscopal post-conciliar traitor to The Roman Catholic Faith is destined for greatness in The House of Lords in UK. Join the old-boy network, here comes Tony Blair to save the church and the world with his brand of neo-paganised eclecticism and cultural relativism. We have public photographs of this heretic and blasphemer shaking hands with two popes having been received on a number of occasions at The Vatican. What on Earth is going on, one might well demand?

No, no, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to desist from your wild and unrealistic dreams. The Church you love and espouse will not be found where you believe it to be. It has been hijacked by protestantism and free masonry. The Pope has no real power at all as it has been stripped away in the 1960s and after. The power is the political office of secretary of state and his cabalistic ilk who have sabotaged the papal authority. Meanwhile, out in the provinces it is eastern style episcopal despots such as Zollitsch who live off the fruits of the NO faithful while he follows his own appetites not those of a Church.This is a church he has abandoned at worst or probably never properly known at best.

There is now a complete role reversal being played out in the post-conciliar church - once the church militant was destroyed in the 1960s it became the politico-morally compromised church of the postmodern period. Mohamatenism has replaced it as the leading militant mouthpiece for its version of spiritual morality, together with buddhism and hinduism.

What little defense the pope now lends The Roman Catholic Faith as we used to know and understand it is symbolical; a mere token offering, although it certainly is welcome, and a concession to a part of the church seen as sentimentally attached to ancient usage. To expect more than this is unreasonable in the light of the new philosophies which have also been christened and confirmed in the NO church since 1969. These we witness being proclaimed and propagated throughout what was once Roman Catholic Christendom: now become a devastated dechristianised re-paganising wasteland.

Discipline, you say, discipline! No, no. The NO church does not discipline, did you not hear Pope John XXIII (RIP)? Unless that is you request tradition without compromise. Then you are accused of extremism and terrorism. Regard carefully what is happening in UK and now USA if you want to know the next steps being taken against those of us who stand for tradition.

Zollitsch has already chosen the side that he is going to be on. To save your skin in this life you must abandon Our Blessed Lord as Saviour at Calvary and put on the second-hand robes of endless ambiguous chatter called interreligious dialogue together with the soiled vestments of pantheistic ecumenism and the self-realisation movement toward Omega point. Collegiality will do the rest.

No wonder the pope is such a lonely man.

wsxyz said...

I have made an attempt to create a transcript of the interview. Unfortunately there are bits that I can't quite decipher:

Journalist: Gestern war Karfreitag, der Tag, an dem Jesus gekreuzigt wurde und, nach theologischer tradition, gestorben ist für die Sünden der Menschen. Ist das noch zeitgemäß, diese Interpretation?

(Yesterday was Good Friday, the day on which Jesus was crucified and, in traditional theology, died for the sins of mankind. Is this still an acceptable interpretation these days?)

Bishop: ... Er ist nicht deswegen für die Sünden der Welt gestorben weil Gott eine Sühneopfer, einen Sündenbock, gleichsam gebraucht hätte. Er hat sich mit uns Menschen, mit seinem Leiden, mit seinem Tod, bis zum letzen mit uns solidarisiert.

(He didn't die for the sins of the world in the sense that God needed a sacrifice of atonement, or a scapegoat. With His suffering, with His death, to the very end he showed solidarity with us men.)

Er hat gezeigt, dass auch das Leiden der Menschen, jeder schmerz, dass auch der Tod von Gott angenommen sind, und von Gott verwandelt werden in seinem Sohn Jesus Christus.

(He showed that even the suffering of men, every pain, that even death was taken by God upon himself and by God transformed in His Son Jesus Christ.)

... diese gewaltige Solidarität die soweit geht, dass er all das mit mir leidet und wenn ich mich mal fragen ... nach dem Sinn von Leid und Tod, dann ist für mich der
entscheidene Antwort, dass Jesus Christus das mit mir und für mich
durchgetragen hat ... und sagt mir, da bin ich nicht allein da geht Gott mit mir.

(this massive solidarity, that goes so far, that he suffers everything with me, and for me, and when I ask ... about the meaning of death and suffering, then the decisive answer for me is that Jesus Christ has endured it with me and for me ... and say to myself, there you are not alone, there God accompanies you.)

Journalist: Also Sie würden est nicht mehr so formulieren, dass Gott quasi seinen eigenen Sohn hingegeben hat, weil wir Menschen so sündig waren, so wurden Sie es nicht mehr formulieren?

(So you would no longer phrase it so: that God offered his own Son because we men were so sinful, you wouldn't phrase it that way any longer?)

Bishop: Nein. Er hat seinen eigenen Sohn in Solidarität mit uns bis in diese letze Todesnot hineingelassen um zu zeigen: Soviel seid ihr mir wert. Ich geh mit euch. Ich bin ganz bei euch in jeder Situation.

(No. He sent he own son in solidarity with us into the last anguish of death to show us: I value you this much. I accompany you. I am completely with you in every situation.)

Journalist: ... Dieser Signal hätte auch anders
gehen können, ja?

(But God could have shown this in some other way, right?)

Bishop: Freilich hätte er vieles anders machen können. ... Es gibt allerdings auch die Freiheit des Menschen. Und die Freiheit da sich gegen Gott zu stellen und auch böses zu tun. Und Gott lässt uns diese Freiheit aber sagt uns in seinem Sohn: auch wenn euch von mir abwendet, wenn ihr böses tun, ich bin bei euch indem ich euch helfe und trage. ... nicht aus einer höherem ??? sondern aus eurem Menschsein heraus, in dem ich mich voll und ganz einlasse. Und das ist für mich etwas Großartiges an Gott.


(Sure he could have done a lot of things differently ... But men also have freedom; the freedom to oppose God, and also to do evil. God allows us this freedom but tells us in His Son: even when you turn from me, even when you do evil, I remain with you in that I help you and carry you. ... not looking from above, but instead out from your humanity, to which I have completely joined myself. And that is for me something wonderful about God.)

Journalist: ... Aber es gibt
in der katholischen Tradition viele Menschen die heute noch unter dieser Tradition leiden, dass ihnen früher nahegebracht wurde: Der Herr Jesus ist für deine Sünden am Kreuz hat erleiden müssen und sterben müssen. Ist so eine Art von sehr brutaler Katechese für viele Menschen.

(But there are still many people in the Catholic community that suffer under this tradition, that they were previously told: For your sins, the Lord Jesus had to suffer and had to die. It is a brutal sort of teaching for many people.)

Bishop: Es kommt darauf an, wie wir das von der Tiefe her sehen. Auch meine Sünden, sage ich, sind Schuld daran, dass er sich so eingelassen hat mit mir. Aber er hat aus Solidarität mir mir eingelassen, aus freiem Willen und er hat das deswegen mitgetragen was ich verschuldet habe, auch was ich verursacht habe am Bösem, um damit zugleich das nun hinauf zu nehmen in die Welt Gottes, und damit auch mir den Weg aus Sundenschuld, aus dem Tod zum Leben zu zeigen.

(It depends on how we, looking from below, choose to see it. I will say that also my sins are the reason that He involved Himself with me. But he did it out of solidarity with me, out of his free will and therefore with me he helped carry that which I owed, and also that evil which I caused, in order to raise that up into the world of God, in order also to show me the way out of the guilt of sin, out of death, into life.)

Jordanes said...

Ms. White, “RC” was not referring to my quote from your lead paragraph, but to your quote of Bishop Zollitsch, in which you wrote, “Zollitsch said that Christ ‘did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat.’” RC said that quote is a mistranslation, and that it should say Christ “did not die for the sins of man because God needed a victim, that is, a scapegoat, for sin.” You must agree there is a world of difference between the two translations. “God needing a victim, that is a scapegoat” is nothing at all like “God providing a sacrificial offering like a scapegoat.”

I am immensely grateful to wsxyz for providing the foundation of an accurate and contextual translation. Judging from that translation, Bishop Zollitsch’s remarks seem much less objectionable, though they are ambiguous in parts and would call for some clarification.

Prodinoscopus said...

From wsxyz's translation:

It depends on how we, looking from below, choose to see it. I will say that also my sins are the reason that He involved Himself with me. But he did it out of solidarity with me, out of his free will and therefore with me he helped carry that which I owed, and also that evil which I caused, in order to raise that up into the world of God, in order also to show me the way out of the guilt of sin, out of death, into life.Now, who does that sound like? It sounds to me very much like something that Pope Benedict XVI himself would write. It is not particularly objectionable, it is certainly not heretical. Yet it is also a somewhat mealy-mouthed way of avoiding the "brutal" truth that most Catholics today don't want to hear: "For your sins, the Lord Jesus had to suffer and had to die."

Did Jesus freely accept his death out of solidarity with sinners? Of course. Traditional theology does not deny it. One could argue that this Bishop is merely emphasizing an aspect of Christ's sacrifice that was not emphasized so much by traditional theology. Yet he also seems to want to throw the traditional theology out the window, he wants to be done with all talk of "victim" and "sacrifice", and speak instead of "solidarity". In this, he might not be expressing formal or even material heresy, yet he is opening the door to it.

Anonymous said...

Here's a comment or two most will deplore -- though not to endorse this peculiar Archbishop: To think that Christ was sent into the world by the Father to heap our sins upon His back is Jansenism. Christ, the Lover of Mankind, sacrifices Himself from pure love and pure free will. If at least part of what the German Prelate meant to convey is this, then this point needs much clarification, though it seems the Archbishop is not the best one for the task.

Kevin said...

@Jordanes

Journalist: Also Sie würden est nicht mehr so formulieren, dass Gott quasi seinen eigenen Sohn hingegeben hat, weil wir Menschen so sündig waren, so wurden Sie es nicht mehr formulieren?

(So you would no longer phrase it so: that God offered his own Son because we men were so sinful, you wouldn't phrase it that way any longer?)

Bishop: Nein. Er hat seinen eigenen Sohn in Solidarität mit uns bis in diese letze Todesnot hineingelassen um zu zeigen: Soviel seid ihr mir wert. Ich geh mit euch. Ich bin ganz bei euch in jeder Situation.

(No. He sent he own son in solidarity with us into the last anguish of death to show us: I value you this much. I accompany you. I am completely with you in every situation.)

How is this not objectionable?

Prodinoscopus said...

Anon 17:00,

Our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly was sent into this world by the Father to have all of our sins heaped upon his back, and he accepted that burdensome task out of love: love for the Father and love for us.

Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. (Isaias 53:4-5)

Bishop Zollitsch's comments can perhaps be charitably read as a gloss on Isaias, yet his notion that "God doesn't need a victim" certainly skirts the edges of heresy.

alban said...

On several occasions members of the secular media have selected snippets from speeches given by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, and presented them out of context. These were shameful actions.

Sadly, this blog has done the same with the interview concerning Archbishop Zollitsch, and several people have grabbed on to it and posted comments which can only be described as ingorant and scandalous and (I venture to suggest) sinful.

I am very grateful to wsxzy for providing a good translation (I have little German but a professor friend of mine who teaches the language tells me the translation is "more than decent").

As has been pointed out by more than one person, the Archbishop is not denying that Christ died for our sins, but rejecting the (Calvinist...yes, Calvinist) view that God needed a scapegoat from which to demand payment through suffering and death. The Catholic Church does not teach that God is some capricious judge seeking revenge for the ungrateful sinfulness of humanity. As both Jordanes and RC correctly point out, the Archbishop is following the (valid and solidly orthodox) theological understanding of redemption held by those of Eastern Christianity; this is not heresy as some theologically-uninformed and quick-to-judge individuals have asserted.

When a Catholic website such Rorate Caeli publishes inaccurate and inflammatory statements such as in this post, they do damage to the Body of Christ and are no better than the yellow journalists who twist and warp the statements of the Holy Father. For shame!

Adeodatus said...

I admit that I can be a simple-minded man, and I am far more enamored of sublimity than subtlety.

Christ died for our sins. To deny this is heresy.

If Christ hadn't died on the cross and rose again, how would I be saved from my sins? This talk of "solidarity" is frankly confusing. I thought "solidarity" was a feeling you had when you recognized that (for example) a fellow proletarian revolutionary shared in your struggle against the ruling class.

I'm rather baffled as to what his excellency is on about. It doesn't sound right to me.

Paul Haley said...

I think that the interpretation Bishop Zollitch gives to the redemptive act of Jesus Christ fails to recognize that Christ's sacrifice was to His Father in reparation for the sin of Adam against His Father.

In other words since the Divine was sinned against, the Divine also had to give reparation - equal Justice one might say. Yes, Divine Love of Mankind was also involved but primarily the motive was giving satisfaction to the Almighty God who was wounded by Adam's sin.

At least this is how I remember it being described to me in the middle grades of catholic school. One thing is for certain and that is this interpretation by Bishop Zollitch is different from anything that I had heard in school or college and I agree that a clarification would be most welcome.

The other question is why such an interpretation needs to be put forth now with the memory of Our Lord's Passion and Death so recently renewed during Holy Week? It just doesn't seem, well, traditional.

Prodinoscopus said...

Come down off your high horse, Alban. There has been balanced commentary on the original post in light of supplied translation and additional context. The Archbishop clearly wants to be done with the traditional theology of atonement and replace it with a theology of solidarity. The Archbishop does not want to admit that God offered his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. Instead, he substitutes a theologically anemic (albeit not explicitly heretical) neo-modernist formula:

I will say that also my sins are the reason that He involved Himself with me.An honest and true Catholic, when asked if Our Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, will simply answer: "YES". This liberal archbishop cannot bring himself to give a simple assent to the most basic tenet of the Catholic Faith ... and on Holy Saturday, no less.

Si, si, no, no. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.

Despicable modernists. I still wait for our chief shepherd to intervene on behalf of his sheep.

Cosmos said...

This is the kind of silly intellectual pride that has cost Christendom Europe. To me, it sounds like Rahner.

He speaks like a typical confused academic theologian. They start with the premise that the world cannot hear the gospel unless it is put in its terms; we have lost the faith because we are preaching in a ancient tongue, so to speak. Therefore, the goal is to make the Gospel understandable to the modern world by translating it into the predominate worldview of the day, just like Aquinas did in his day with Aristotle (though this is not what Aquinas actually did). Then they somehow conclude that Martin Heidegger, among other extremely obscure thinkers, represent modern man (which they definitely do not) because that is what their thesis advisors are reading. Next, they take interesting observation about the Gospel which can be gleaned from that perspective (Jesus as authentic man of solidarity) and insist that it is the true and legitimate perspective. While it may be true on some level, they are left awkwardly sitting next to the deposit of faith passed down through generations (are you saying Jesus did not die for our sins? Well, no exactly…). When confronted with the incongruity: oversimplify, dismiss, talk about modern living, move along.

In my opinion: Pride, pride, pride.

Jordanes said...

Kevin, “Bishop Zollitsch’s remarks seem much less objectionable” is not the same as “Bishop Zollitsch’s remarks are not objectionable.”

Alban, I too am troubled by the rush to judgment of most of the commenters here, and I hope that will cease. We need to be sure of our facts before reaching any conclusions, especially about something so dreadful as suspicion of heresy.

Still, even with wsxzy’s accurate translation, and even granting that he was attempting only to reject erroneous penal substitutionism (and by the way, I have only suggested that interpretation of his comments, since we can’t know at this time if that’s what he was trying to do), Bishop Zollitsch’s remarks don’t seem to be entirely accurate in their presentation of the Catholic faith regarding Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins. For example, he emphasizes that Christ became one of us and died for us to show us the depth of His love and of the love of His Father for us. That is true, and it agrees with John 3:16 --- except St. John doesn’t just say, “God so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son,” but also says, “that those who believe in Him should not perish.” Bishop Zollitsch does acknowledge that Christ’s death is for our sins, and shows us the way out of sin, but he leaves unmentioned the crucial fact that His death saves the faithful from everlasting death. I think the best one can say about his comments is that they are ambiguous and call urgently for clarification if not correction.

Adeodatus said: I thought "solidarity" was a feeling you had when you recognized that (for example) a fellow proletarian revolutionary shared in your struggle against the ruling class. *** Not a feeling, but working in cooperation with one’s fellows to help them when they are in need.

alban said...

Prodinscopus: You write: " The Archbishop does not want to admit that God offered his Son as a sacrifice for our sins." Although, I am not privy to the wishes of the Archbishop, I doubt that he has shared with you what he wants.

Regarding the sacrifice of Christ, the Archbishop said that "Jesus Christ has endured it with me and FOR me..." (Capitalisation mine); this clearly indicates that he does believe Christ died FOR him i.e. the Archbishop. He is not, as you assert, rejecting the Catholic understanding of the atonement, but the one held by Calvinism in which God is seen as being a somewhat vindictive Father demanding blood guilt for the sins of humanity. The serious accusation of 'heretic' has been flippantly thrown around, there have even been criticisms of the Holy Father....and as for the comment of Alexander...he implies that he knows better than the last 3 popes. I do agree with you that there have been some balanced comments in the light of the provided translation. However, my post was (I hope) clearly about those who made vitriolic and unsubstantiated statements based upon truncated, and skewed information published on this blog.

Jordanes: Like you, I was somewhat concerned about the apparent lack of any connection between Christ's sacrifice and the saving of humanity from the intense isolation of hell. Yet, I need to be fair and remember that this was an interview rather than a scholarly essay, and as such has unavoidable attendant limitations.

The Archbishop said that Christ "...didn't die for the sins of the world in the sense that God needed a sacrifice of atonement, or a scapegoat..." Grammatically, the qualification "in the sense" is crucial to understanding the sentence. It indicates that the Archbishop does, indeed, believe that Christ died for the sins of the world but would not explain it in (the Calvinist) terms of needing/requiring a scapegoat. I will give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt on this point, though it would certainly benefit from quick clarification.

nd1282 said...

Archbishop Zollitsch's comments are causing a scandal in Germany as well, so this may not simply be an "out of context" or "lost in translation" issue.

See this article for details
(can be automatically translated
into French, English, and Russian on the website).

http://www.kreuz.net/article.9047.html

Jordanes said...

The Kreuz.net article seems to be based chiefly upon the Lifesitenews.com report, and includes no quotes from the interview except a question from the journalist and the bishop's answer, "Nein" (leaving out the remainder of the bishop's answer). Lifesitenews.com in turn relied on the initial unhelpful and inaccurate report at Catholic Church Conservation. Anyway, it seems Kreuz.net's story is at least as much (if not more) about the reaction in the English-speaking world as it is about the reaction among German-speakers.

Hebdomadary said...

Based on Jordanes' and Alban's comments, I will admit that there is just a hint of possibility that I might have rushed to judgement on the Archbishop as well. However I would also point out that for me, and others, the expectation that everything that appears on Rorate Caeli is correct in the n'th degree is cultivated by the fact that it usually is. If the report is in fact incomplete (as it would be, given that it's not a complete translation of the interview) or even inaccurate, I offer the Archbishop my unreserved apologies, and ask his indulgent forgiveness.

If however it is an accurate reflection of the implications of his statements and opinions on Christ's salvific act on the Cross, well, I can only pray for him, and for our Church.

Anonymous said...

The news have been reported here in italian: http://fidesetforma.blogspot.com/

There's also a strange photo of the Arcibishop with a man dressed as the Pope!

Prodinoscopus said...

Alban,

The Archbishop has made it very clear that he does not want to understand the Cross as atonement for sin:

Journalist: So you would no longer phrase it so: that God offered his own Son because we men were so sinful, you wouldn't phrase it that way any longer?

Bishop: No. He sent he own son in solidarity with us into the last anguish of death to show us: I value you this much. I accompany you. I am completely with you in every situation.
He emphatically refutes the propitiatory character of Christ's sacrifice. How much more clear does it need to be?

wsxyz said...

As far as I know, kreuz.net is the originator of the story, as posted here: http://www.kreuz.net/article.9028.html Cathcon simply translated this kreuz.net post into English.

Kreuz.net is the main, if not the only, traditionalist Catholic site in Germany and the comments section is generally a nasty fight between a few traditional Catholics who are willing to argue and a bunch of anti-Catholic hecklers, who vigorously attack most every article. Kreuz.net, therefore, tends to be very confrontational in the way it approaches most any story.

Now there are plenty of native speakers of German, both at kreuz.net and at glora.tv, who agree that Archbishop Zollitsch's answers in the interview were heretical. In fact, in the forum at gloria.tv, which is not nearly so combative as kreuz.net there seemed to be general agreement that what the Archbishop said was heretical, but many suggested that he simply went too far in trying to appease the secular, atheistic journalist and that his beliefs don't deviate from orthodoxy as much as his words do.

The most problematic part of the interview is the very beginning. He says that God didn't need a "Suehneopfer" or a "Suendenbock". People have been latching onto the word "Suendenbock" -- "scapegoat" to give him a pass. But the most important word here is "Suehneopfer". This is "expiatory sacrifice" or "a sacrifice of atonement". To claim that God didn't need an expiatory sacrifice is hard to stomach. If God didn't need an expiatory sacrifice, then there was no need for atonement for sin. So why did Jesus die? Apparently to "show solidarity" with human suffering.

The journalist wants to nail the Archbishop down so he comes back with "So you would no longer say that God offered up His Son because we humans are so sinful?". Unfortunately, Archbishop Zollitsch answers this direct question with "No", implying that Jesus did not die for our sins and, moreover, that this is a change in teaching appropriate for the sophisticated world of today.

It is only at the end of the interview, that the Archbishop begins to try to back away from the edge of the cliff by saying that Jesus suffered "with me and for me". Unfortunately, in my opinion, he already went over the edge.

Gideon Ertner said...

Jordanes, there is an earlier posting from kreuz.net here, showing a video caption of the interview + transcripts.

http://www.kreuz.net/article.9028.html

Not being a theologian, and a convert at that, I don't know about the penal substitution theory and whether that's what His Excellency is talking about. However, for me the worrying part is the exchange,

INT.: “You would now no longer phrase it in such a way that God in a sense gave up His own son because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer phrase it like that?”

ZOLL: "No..."

Perhaps what he goes on to say can be contained in a Catholic mindset, but it sounds dodgy, Liberation theology-like, and is at best unclear.

Surely any sincere Christian who is not ashamed of his faith - but IS ashamed of his own sinfulness because he knows it has cost his Saviour His life - would not answer "no" to the above question.

Anonymous said...

Since this is the year of St. Paul, perhaps a review of I Cor 15:1-4a is in order. Especially for your highbrow philosophizers who want to mollify the Bishop's comments to at least be "ambiguous". This is from the RSV CE:

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you were saved, IF you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received, THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, etc..."(Caps added for emphasis.)

Notice that in St. Paul's mind, Christ's death for our sins is of the most important thing. No ambiguity here, no siree. Here's a little more from St. Paul to the Romans, chapter 5, verses 9 & 10:

"Since, therefore, we are now justified BY HIS BLOOD, much more shall we be saved by him FROM THE WRATH OF GOD. For if while we were ENEMIES we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."

Hmmm...what's this comment of his about the "wrath of God"???

Then there is this little verse in First John, chapter 2, verse 2:

"and He is THE EXPIATION FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD."
(CAPS added for emphasis.)

I dare say that St. Paul and St. John wouldn't recognize the "gospel" of this German prelate as it has no sense of sin, no sense that "I-am-a-miserable-sinner-deserving-God's-wrath-and-eternal-punishment" no sense of God's wrath against sin, no sense of expiation or propitiation or the appeasement of God's anger against our sins by the sacrifice and blood-letting of His Only Son. Indeed, like another commenter indicated, this sort of mealy-mouthed gibberish (with some feel-good self-esteem "solidarity" verbiage tossed-in) from a purportedly Catholic bishop is a significant component of what has caused the loss of Europe and the watering down of the Gospel and the offense of the Cross! Sadly, our Catholic parishes are full of this sort of trash. God will one day right all of this, to be sure. This hope keeps away despair. We all need to do more penance and pray fervently to the Lord for the revival of the Faith.

Jordanes said...

wsxyz, Gideon, thanks. After my comment above I did find the earlier Kreuz.net article, and saw that cathcon had translated it, which faulty translation then was the basis for Lifesitenews' article. Kreuz.net then ran a follow-up article about Lifesitenews picking up their story and running with it.

But again, even translated correctly, the bishop's words are ambiguous at best. Of course we have to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent possible. Nevertheless it doesn't appear that he explained things correctly, even if it may not rise to the level of heresy. For instance, the question of God "needing" an expiatory sacrifice. Well, of course God does nothing of necessity -- but WE need an expiatory sacrifice even though God needs nothing at all, and so God provided it in sending us His Son. There's so much more of vital importance to Christ's death than the aspect of it that Bishop Zollitsch wishes us to focus on, and it's difficult to see how his explanation which omits or rejects those other important matters is of any help in understanding the truth and meaning of Christ's death for mankind.

Anonymous said...

Jordannes,

As one who has studied theology and read the Fathers and Doctors, the german Bishop's comments are in my opinion

FORMALLY HEREETICAL

However, just because they are, does not mean we can impute the sin of heresy, because he must now be questioned as to what he meant to say. For charity thinketh no evil, nor can we see into his heart.

However we can say objectively, that the doctrine that Christ had to die for ous sins to offer a sufficient expiatory oblation to the Father is a dogma of the Faith, divinely revealed in Scripture and Tradition. To deny it is rank heresy.

As for the penal substitutionn theory, I would no more exuse the bishop or accuse him on the basis of this being a Calvinistic dogma, because he makes no mention of this phrase "penal substitution theory".

As for what Scripture says, Christ is often compared to the sacrificial lamb, a holocaust, a sin offering. A Scapegoat was never sacrificed, but merely released. However, just as the sins of Israel were confessed over its head, and it was chased outside the city to be subject to the viscissitudes of lonely places, so Christ was condemned by the High Priest, saying it was better than one man die than that the whole nation perish, and thus was handed over to be driven from the city and die an ignomious death. So in this sense, we can rightly and catholicly say Christ took the place of a scapegoat. But we do not use the term in any popular sense, merely as a scriptural analogy.

Finally, if Christ did not died for our sins, then we all deserve to be eternamly damned. In this sense it is right and catholic to say that His Sacrifice, and death, was substitutionary.

Sorry Jordannes, but the statements at least, esp. with the "No" replies are formally sufficient to accuse him of heresy, the crime. There needs to be a catholic reaction from the Pope, otherwise he jeapardizes his own moral authority and gives further scandal.

And no, it is not scandalous to examine the bishops words, it is scandalous to encourage us not too, in such a evidently erroneous professionn as he has made.


Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

Anybody wants to translate this interview by made by AP to the Bishop three days prior the tv interview. I guess it sheds light on what he really wanted to convey.

http://de.news.yahoo.com/1/20090403/ten-ein-liebesgeschenk-an-die-menschheit-207a97c.html?printer=1

A rough Google translation:

Frankfurt / Main (AP) The chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, has warned the Easter message Easter bunnies and Easter eggs to be reduced. "Easter is the central and most important festival of Christianity," Zollitsch said in an interview with the AP news agency. At Easter, the central question of meaning for the people asked: "Why I live and why is life even if it is earthly ends next?»

AP: Is Easter with the resurrection of Jesus from a Christian perspective more important than Christmas? Born to be finally all people, but the victory of life over death is a central message of Christianity?

Zollitsch: Easter is the central and most important feast of Christianity. It almost completed, what Christmas has begun. Easter is the feast at which the fear of man is overcome, there is hope, there is the prospect of life after death. By his death Christ has for us people to overcome death. This is something profoundly liberating: Life goes on, because we also have Easter with our own resurrection at heart.

AP: Why is it your opinion that Easter from social perspective less emphasis than Christmas?

Zollitsch: First, it is noted that the atmosphere of Christmas, the child in the manger, the Christmas tree decorated with burning candles many people emotionally much more attractive than Easter. All the more is about the importance to re-explain Easter . The gleam of the Christmas trees and Christmas gifts characterize superficial, without always the message of the festival is understood. For Easter is the message of Easter bunnies and Easter eggs at reduced. But even this is too superficial. There is more: An Easter is the central question of meaning for the people asked. Why I live and why is life even if it is earthly ends next? From this hope, we need to re-tell.

AP: Many people find it difficult, the idea of a loving God with the suffering of the innocent Jesus on the cross to bring them into compliance? Does God is a sin offering?

Zollitsch: God needs no expiatory sacrifice, but theologically the death of Jesus wants to show the world that Christ cruxifiction needed to be redeemed. In the Old Testament will give us the tradition of "scapegoat" survived: A goat was symbolically laden with sins, and hunted in the desert. Christ redeemed by his death, humanity and enables her to live in and with God. What initially sounds tragic and brutal, death on the cross is the ultimate expression of total self-giving of Jesus, a love gift to humanity. He died not for God, but for us.

(The interview was conducted by Stephan Köhnlein)

catholic said...

A FSSP-Father commented on the whole issue.

Kath.net has just published the whole comment of Father B. Deneke.

http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=22720

JSarto said...

Journalist: Also Sie würden est nicht mehr so formulieren, dass Gott quasi seinen eigenen Sohn hingegeben hat, weil wir Menschen so sündig waren, so wurden Sie es nicht mehr formulieren?

(So you would no longer phrase it so: that God offered his own Son because we men were so sinful, you wouldn't phrase it that way any longer?)Bishop: Nein. Er hat seinen eigenen Sohn in Solidarität mit uns bis in diese letze Todesnot hineingelassen um zu zeigen: Soviel seid ihr mir wert. Ich geh mit euch. Ich bin ganz bei euch in jeder Situation.

(No. He sent he own son in solidarity with us into the last anguish of death to show us: I value you this much. I accompany you. I am completely with you in every situation.)This is pure heresy against traditional catholic doctrine, even if some commentators don't like to listen such thing!

Philip said...

Look folks, we can avoid the problem in the future by not relying on the Lifesite website to report on these things. A good site for prolife issues and they should stick to that.

- Phil

LeonG said...

"THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS'

Thank you anonymous. Additionally, the holy father has given a talk to the Pontifical Bible Commission laying down the criteria for correctly interpreting Sacred Scripture.

Why should we for the umpteenth time give yet another disorientated church hierarch or presbyter the benefit of the doubt when there is no benefit in their doubt. He clouds his speech in carefully crafted nebulous phraseology that scandalises the faithful but satisfies the unbelieving secular audience he wishes to please. He uses weasel words to cloak his own misgivings about The Sacred Scriptures and infects the ordinary man and woman with another layer of characteristic postmodernist religious scepticism.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes, you are far too kind to this mealy-mouthed prelate, who toys with heresy because he's too clever for his own good. Si si, no no.

Anon 01:27 nails it. Well done.

Jordanes said...

It is not too kind to hold back from making a judgment that neither I nor anyone else here is competent to make. However, what he has said is disconcerting to say the least, and concerns or objection should be brought to him, and if necessary to the competent authorities.

Perhaps wsxyz could translate the AP Stephan Köhnlein interview for us. It may, or may not, help clarify things.

Prodinoscopus said...

Zollitsch: God needs no expiatory sacrifice, but theologically the death of Jesus wants to show the world that Christ cruxifiction needed to be redeemed. In the Old Testament will give us the tradition of "scapegoat" survived: A goat was symbolically laden with sins, and hunted in the desert. Christ redeemed by his death, humanity and enables her to live in and with God. What initially sounds tragic and brutal, death on the cross is the ultimate expression of total self-giving of Jesus, a love gift to humanity. He died not for God, but for us.

Emphasis added.

HERESY.

I'm happy to revisit my opinion upon reading a more accurate translation.

Paul Haley said...

Zollitsch: God needs no expiatory sacrifice, but theologically the death of Jesus wants to show the world "that Christ cruxifiction needed to be redeemed".It would seem that this could better be said that "Christ's crucifixion was necessary for man's redemption" and although God needs no expiatory sacrifice, mankind, in the person of Jesus Christ, needed to offer one for its redemption.

In any case we cannot judge the man's intent for that is left up to God alone. But we can pray that a full clarification will be forthcoming.

Mar said...

Thank you Anon 01:27. Solidarity with the human condition even unto death is not the same as someone dying for the sins of mankind. The latter presupposes that God is offended by sin and that justice towards Him demands that sins be expiated. The former does not.

The "solidarity" interpretation makes a mockery of the prayer "Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis". It also makes a mockery of the unbloody sacrifice of Holy Mass offered to God as propitiation for sins.

LeonG said...

The fact that clarification is yet again required demonstrates objectively the points being made. These are men who are incapable of clarity because they are confounded to embarrassment by what is essentially simple but also essentially disturbing for them in an era of mass dechristianisation. This is the hallmark of most postconciliar churchmen when they have something to say in public. They do little to enhance faith, in fact they more often scatter the faithful.

New Catholic said...

Thank you for the translation, JSarto.

This Bishop is a disgrace, and his declarations are scandalous - this after his Conference's absurd attacks against the Pope's moves in favor of the unity of the Church since January.

Let us all pray for the Pope, and for the Church in Germany surrounded by wolves dressed up as shepherds.

NC