Ratzinger Lecture at the University of Reg Ens Burg

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

  APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS H OLINESS BENEDICT XVI HIS  HOLINESS TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006) MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE

 LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER  Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006 

   Faith, Reason and the University  Memories and Reflections

  Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,  Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving exp experience erience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompen recompense se there was much direct contact with students and in particu particular lar among the professo professors rs themselve themselves. s. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teachin teachingg staff. There was a lively exchange exchange with historia historians, ns, philosophers, philosop hers, philolog philologists ists and, natural naturally, ly, between the two theologi theological cal faculties. faculties. Once a semester there was was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, university, making poss possible ible a genuine expe experience rience of universitas  somethingg that you too, Magnific somethin Magnificent ent Rector, just mention mentioned ed - the experience, experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializati specializations ons which at times make it difficul difficultt to communicate communic ate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibil responsibility ity for the right use of  reason - this reality beca became me a lived experience. experience. The univers university ity was also very proud of its two theol theological ogical faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasona reasonableness bleness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necess necessarily arily part of the "whole "whole"" of the universitas if not everyone co could uld share the faith faith which theolog theologians ians seek to correla correlate te scientiarum cientiarum, even if with reas reason on as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reporte reportedd that a colleagu colleaguee had said there was some something thing odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reason reasonable able to raise the question of God through the use of reason, an andd to do so in the contex contextt of the tradition of  the Christian faith: this, within the univers university ity as a whole, was accepted withou withoutt question. I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodo Theodore re Khoury (Münster)) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barrac (Münster barracks ks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantin Byzantinee emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated educated Persian [1] It  It was presumably the on the subject of who Christianity ande,the truththe of siege both. both.[1] emperor himself set downand thisIslam, dialogue, dialogu during of Constantinople Constan tinople betw between een 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 1 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

[2] The  The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith those of his Persian interlocutor. interlocutor.[2] containedd in the Bible and in the Qur'an containe Qur'an,, and deals especiall especiallyy with the image of God and of  man, while necessarily necessarily returnin returningg repeatedly to the relationship betwee betweenn - as they were called - three "Law "Laws" s" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.. It is not my intentio Qur'an intentionn to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rath rather er marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", reason", I found interest interesting ing and which can serve as the starting-pointt for my reflections on this issue. starting-poin In the sevent seventhh conversatio conversationn ( !"#$%&"'  - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion compulsion in religion". religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early perio period, d, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But natural naturally ly the emperor also knew the instructions, develop developed ed later and recordedd in the Qur'an, concern recorde concerning ing holy war. Without Without descending to details, such as the difference differen ce in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses address es his interlocuto interlocutorr with a startlin startlingg brusqueness, a brusque brusqueness ness that we find unacceptable, unaccep table, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brough broughtt that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] preached.” [3] The  The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violen violence ce is somethin somethingg unreasonab unreasonable. le. Violencee is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, Violenc "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (()*  $+,-) is contrary to God's nature nature.. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Who Whoever ever would lead someo someone ne to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly properly,, without without violence and threats. threats..... To convince a reasonable reasona ble soul, one does not need a strong arm arm,, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..." death...".. [4] The decisive decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in  The editor, Theodore Khoury, accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] nature.[5] The observes: observe s: For the emperor, as a Byzantine Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy philosophy,, this statement is self-eviden selfevident.t. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely absolutely transcen transcendent. dent. His will is not bound [6] Here  Here Khoury quotes a work of the up with any of our categor categories, ies, even that of rationa rationality. lity.[6] noted French Islamist Islamist R. Arnaldez, who poin points ts out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound eve evenn by his own word, and that nothing would obl oblige ige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7] idolatry.[7] At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concern concerned, ed, wecontradic are facedtswith annature unavoi unavoidable dable dilemma. Is theorconvic conviction tion that unreasonably unreaso nably contradicts God's merely a Greek idea, is it always andacting intrinsi intrinsically cally true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understan understanding ding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologu prologuee of  his Gospel with the words: "In the beginnin beginningg was the $+,.'". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, ()* $+,-, with logos. Logos  means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of selfself-communi communication, cation, precisely precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsom toilsomee and tortuous threads of biblical faith faith find their culmination and synthes synthesis. is. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evange Evangelist. list. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedo Macedonian nian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" "distilla tion" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement rapprochement betwe between en Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 2 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

In point of fact, this rapproche rapprochement ment had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates separates this God from all other divinitiess with their many names and simply asserts being, "I am", already presents a divinitie challengee to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth challeng  Within the Old Testament, the process which which started at the stands in close analogy.[8] analogy. [8] Within burning bush bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which which echoes the words uttered at the burning bu bush: sh: "I am". This new understa understanding nding of God is accompa accompanied nied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, desp despite ite the bitter conflict with those Hellenis Hellenistic tic rulers who sought to accommodate accommod ate it forcibly to the customs and idolatro idolatrous us cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountere encounteredd the best of Greek though thoughtt at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident evident especia especially lly in the later wisdom literature literature.. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced produced at Alexan Alexandria dria - the Septuagin Septuagintt - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation translation of the Hebrew text: it is an indepe independent ndent textual witnes witnesss and a distinct and important step in the history of  revelation, revelati on, one which brough broughtt about this encount encounter er in a way that was decisiv decisivee for the birth [9] A  A profou profound nd encounter of faith and reason is taking plac placee here, and spread of Christi Christianity. anity.[9] an encount encounter er betwee betweenn genuine enligh enlightenment tenment and religion. From the very heart of Christi Christian an faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joine joinedd to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature nature.. In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between between the Greek spirit and the Christian Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called so- called intellectua intellectualism lism of August Augustine ine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, which, in its later developments developments,, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata . Beyond this this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of  which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. done. This gives rise to positions which which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of  a capricio capricious us God, who is not even bound to truth and goodne goodness. ss. God's transcen transcendence dence and otherness otherne ss are so exalted that our reason, reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind behind his actual decisions. As oppose opposedd to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Cou Council ncil in 1215 stated unlikeness unlikene ss remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its langua language. ge. God does not become more divin divinee when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable impenetrable voluntaris voluntarism; m; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed logos and, as logos, has acted and continu himself as love, continues es to actand lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, Certainl y, as Saint Paul says, "transcend "transcends" s" knowledge is thereby capable of  perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos . Consequently, Consequently, Christi Christian an worship is, again to quote Paul - "$.,"/0 $123%41", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom [10] 12:1).[10] 12:1).

This inner rapprochement rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophic philosophical al inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint standpoint of the history of religion religions, s, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concer concerns ns us even today. Given this convergence, converg ence, it is not surprisi surprising ng that Christian Christianity, ity, despite its origins and some signific significant ant developments develop ments in the East, finally took on its historic historically ally decisive charact character er in Europe Europe.. We can also express this the other way around: around: this converg convergence, ence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe Europe.. The thesis that the critical critically ly purified Greek heritage forms an integra integrall part of Christia Christiann faith http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 3 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

has been countered by the call for a dehellenizatio dehellenizationn of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominate dominatedd theological discussions since the beginnin beginningg of the modern age. Viewe Viewedd more closely, three stages can be observe observedd in the programme of dehellenization: dehellenization: althoug althoughh interconnected, intercon nected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations motivations and [11] objectives.[11] objectives. Dehellenization first emerges in connec Dehellenization connection tion with the postulates of the Reforma Reformation tion in the sixteenthh century. Looking at the tradition of scholast sixteent scholastic ic theology theology,, the Reforme Reformers rs thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditi conditioned oned by philosoph philosophy, y, that is to say an articulation articula tion of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appearedd as a living historica appeare historicall Word but as one element of an overarching philosop philosophical hical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, hand, sought faith in its pure, primordiall form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics primordia Metaphysics appea appeared red as a premise derived derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programm programmee forward with a radicalism radicalism that the Reformers Reforme rs could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusivel exclusivelyy in practica practicall reason, denying denying it access to reality as a whole. The liberal theology theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehelle dehellenization nization,, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstan outstanding ding representa representative. tive. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was hig highly hly influential influent ial in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinct distinction ion between the God of the philosophers and and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my [12] and  and I do not intend to inaugural inaugur al lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, issue,[12] repeat here whatthis I said on that occasion, but I would like to describ describe e atidea leastwas briefly what was new about second stage of dehellenization. dehellenizatio n. Harnack's central to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, undernea underneath th the accretio accretions ns of theology and indeed of hellenization: hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religiouss developme religiou development nt of humanity humanity.. Jesus was said to have put an end to worshi worshipp in favour of morality. In the end he was presented presented as the father of a humanit humanitarian arian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating liberating it, that is to say, from seeming seemingly ly philosophic philosophical al and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical historical-critical exegesi exegesiss of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: university: theology,, for Harnac theology Harnack, k, is something essentially historical and therefo therefore re strictly scientific. What it is able to say critical critically ly about Jesus is, so to speak, an expres expression sion of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful pla place ce within the universit university. y. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, clas classically sically expres expressed sed in Kant's "Critiqu "Critiques", es", but in the meantime furthertoradicalized radicaliz ed by the of the naturalPlatonism science sciences. s. (Cartesian This modern reason is based, put it briefly, on aimpact synthesis between (Cartesianism) ism)concept and of  empiricism, empiricis m, a synthes synthesis is confirmed by the success of technolo technology. gy. On the one hand it presupposes presupp oses the mathemat mathematical ical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand understand how matter works and use it efficient efficiently: ly: this basic prem premise ise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understan understanding ding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, purposes, and here only the possibility of  verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian. This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certaint certaintyy resulting from from the interplay of mathematic mathematical al and empirica empiricall elements can be conside considered red scientific. Anyth Anything ing that would claim to be science must be measure measuredd against this criterio criterion. n. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychol psychology, ogy, sociolog sociologyy and philosophy, philosop hy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 4 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method exclud excludes es the question of God, making it appear an unscien unscientific tific or pre-scientific question question.. Consequ Consequently, ently, we are faced with a reduction reduction of the radius of science and reason reason,, one which needs to be questioned. I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed observed that from this standpoint standpo int any attempt to maintain theolog theology's y's claim to be "scienti "scientific" fic" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up bein beingg reduced, for the specifically specific ally human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", "scienc e", so unders understood, tood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjectiv subjective. e. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of  religion,, and the subjective "cons religion "conscience" cience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a communi community ty and become a completely complete ly person personal al matter. This is a dangero dangerous us state of affairs for humanit humanity, y, as we see from the disturbing patho pathologies logies of religion and reason which necessaril necessarilyy erupt when reason is so reduce reducedd that questions of religion and ethics no longer con concern cern it. Attempts to constructt an ethic from the rules of evoluti construc evolution on or from psychology psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate. Before I draw the conclusions conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehelle dehellenization nization,, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation inculturation which ought not to be binding on oth other er cultures cultures. . The latter are said to have theinright torate theitsimple of the New r Testament Testamen t prior to that inculturation, ordertotoreturn incultu inculturate anew message in their own particula particular milieux. This This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testamentt was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had Testamen already come to maturity as the Old Testa Testament ment develope developed. d. True, there are elements in the evolutionn of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultur evolutio cultures. es. Nonetheless, Nonethe less, the fundame fundamental ntal decision decisionss made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are develo developments pments conso consonant nant with the nature of faith itself. And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, pa painted inted with broad strokes, at a critique of  modern reason reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment Enlightenment and rejecting th thee insights of the modern age. The positive aspe aspects cts of  modernityy are to be acknow modernit acknowledged ledged unreserv unreservedly: edly: we are all grateful for the marvello marvellous us possibilities possibil ities that it has up for mankind and, for progres progress s in that has been granted to us. Theopened scientif scientific ic ethos, moreover moreover, is - the as you yours yourself elfhumanity mentioned, Magnificent Magnific ent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which which belong belongss to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising arising from these possi possibilities bilities and we must ask ourselv ourselves es how we can overcome them. We will succeed succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if  we overcome the self-imposed self -imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifi falsifiable, able, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. horizons. In this sense theology rightly belo belongs ngs in the universi university ty and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historic historical al discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuin genuinee dialogue of cultures and religion religionss so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philoso philosophy phy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religiouss cultures see this exclusion religiou exclusion of the divine from the universality universality of reason as an http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 5 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

attack on their most profoun profoundd convictions convictions.. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegatess religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of  relegate cultures.. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, moder cultures modernn scientific reaso reasonn with its intrinsically intrinsic ally Platonic element bears within itself a question question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibi possibilities lities of its methodo methodology. logy. Modern scientific reason reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure structure of matter and the corresp correspondenc ondencee betwee betweenn our spirit and the prevailing prevaili ng rational struc structures tures of nature as a given, on which its methodo methodology logy has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philoso philosophy phy and theology.. For philosophy and, albeit in a differen theology differentt way, for theology, lis listening tening to the great experiences experien ces and insights of the religious tradit traditions ions of humanity humanity,, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, knowledge, and to ignore it wou would ld be an unacce unacceptable ptable restriction restricti on of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of somethin somethingg Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier convers conversations, ations, man manyy false philoso philosophical phical opinions had been raised, and so Socrate Socratess says: "It would be easily understandab understandable le if someone became so annoyed at all these false false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk abou aboutt being - but in this way he would be deprived ooff the truth of existence and would suffe sufferr a  The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questio questions ns which great loss".[13] loss". [13] The underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and and not the denial of its grande grandeur ur - this is the programme with which a theolog theologyy grounde groundedd in Biblical Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, reasona bly, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, accordingg to his Christian accordin Christian understandi understanding ng of God, in respons responsee to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogu dialoguee of  cultures.. To redisco cultures rediscover ver it consta constantly ntly is the great task of the university. [1] Of translates this as [1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (!"#$%&"'  – Khoury translates “controversy”) “contro versy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”) (“Entretien”),, T. Khoury publ published ished the 7th  “controversy” with footnotes and an extensiv extensivee introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” “contro versies” not include includedd in the edition; the Greek text is accompani accompanied ed by a French translation: “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman. 7e Controverse”, Sources Chrétiennes  n. 115, Paris 196 1966. 6. In the meantime, Karl Förstel pub published lished in Corpus  Islamico- Christianum  ( Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Kho Khoury ury and R. Gle Glei) i) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commen commentary: tary: “Manue “Manuell II. Palaiolog Palaiologus, us, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., vols., Würzbu Würzburg-Altenberge rg-Altenberge 1993-1996. As early as 1966, E. Trapp Trapp had publishedd the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien. I publishe shall be quoting fro from m Khoury Khoury’s ’s edition. [2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, [2] On dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29; extensiv extensivee comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp. [3] Contro [3] Controversy versy VII, 2 c: Khoury Khoury,, pp. 1142-143; 42-143; Förstel, vo vol.l. I, VII. Dialog 1.5 1.5,, pp. 240241. In the Muslim world world,, this quotation has unfortuna unfortunately tely been taken as an expression of  my personal position, thus arousing arousing understand understandable able indign indignation. ation. I hope that the reader of  my text can see immediately that this sentence sentence does not express my personal personal view of the Qur’an, for which which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Empero Emperorr Manuel II, I intende intendedd solely to draw out the essential relationshi relationshipp between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manue Manuell II, but without endorsingg his polemic. endorsin [4] Controversy [4] Contro versy VII, 3 b–c b–c:: Khoury Khoury,, pp. 1144-145; 44-145; Förstel vol. I, VII VII.. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240 240-243. [5] It statement nt that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel [5] It was purely for the sake of this stateme http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 6 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

and his Persian interlocutor. interlocutor. In this statement the theme of my subsequent subsequent reflections emerges. [6] Cf. [6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1. [7] R. [7] R. Arnaldez, Gramm Grammaire aire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury,, p. 144. The fact that ccomparab Khoury omparable le positions exis existt in the theology ooff the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse. [8] Regarding the widely discussed [8] Regarding discussed interpretati interpretation on of the episode of the burning bush, I refer to my book Introduction to Christianity, London 1969, pp. 77-93 (originally published in German as Einführung in das Christentum, Munich 1968; 1968; N.B. the pag pages es quoted refe referr to the entire chapter entitled “The “The Biblica Biblicall Belief in God”). I think that my statements in that book, despite later developments in the discussion, remain valid today. [9] Cf. [9] Cf. A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste en plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées”, simultané es”, in  L’Interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa. Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede , Vatican City 2001, pp. 178-186. [10] On this matter I expressed [10] On expressed myself in greater detail in my book The Spirit of the Liturgy , San Francisco 2000, pp. 44-50. [11] [11] Of  Of the vast literature on the theme of dehellenizati dehellenization, on, I would like to mention above all: A. Grillmeier, “Hel “Hellenisier lenisierung-Judaisierung ung-Judaisierung des Christe Christentums ntums als Deuteprinz Deuteprinzipien ipien der Geschichte Geschic hte des kirchlichen Dogmas Dogmas”, ”, in idem, Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven,

Freiburg 1975, pp. 423-488. [12] Newly  Newly published with commentary by Heino Sonnemans (ed.):  Joseph Ratzinger[12] Ratzinger  Benedikt XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-Verlag Leutesdorf, Leutesdorf, 2nd revised edition, 2005.

[13] Cf. 90 [13] Cf. 90 c-d. For this text, cf. als alsoo R. Guardini, Guardini, Der Tod des Sokrates , 5th  edition, Mainz-Paderborn 1987, pp. 218-221.   Copyright ht 2006 - Libreri Libreriaa Editrice Vaticana © Copyrig

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 7 of 8

 

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

11/21/10 1:18 PM

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_ http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/sep xvi/speeches/2006/septe…er/documents/hf_b te…er/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensbur 0912_university-regensburg_en.html g_en.html

Page 8 of 8