They are an insult to the memory of Saint Ignatius of Loyola

meher172

Last Easter Sunday, we published an article by Mons. José Ignacio Munilla , bishop of San Sebastián, in which the bishop limited himself to remembering that Catholic doctrine - and, incidentally, orthodox and evangelical Protestants (non-liberal) - is something so elementary as that Jesus Christ was truly resurrected and that such a fact, in addition to being a dogma of faith, is historical . Furthermore, he attacks those who deny said historicity. The bishop said: Some theologians, in their attempt to ensure that the Christian faith is fully integrated into the parameters of contemporary culture, sought to carry out a reinterpretation of the resurrection, so that Christian faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not imply the historicity of the empty tomb, the revivification of the corpse, nor the appearances of the resurrected Jesus Christ to the apostles.


All of this would be nothing more than literary constructions of the gospels. For these authors, the resurrection of Christ is reduced to the subjective experience that Jesus lives within us, and that he inspires our existence. Well here is that the “theologian” José María Castillo has become angry with the BasqueJob Function Email List  prelate. And he has had no better idea than to write another article saying that such a resurrection is not a historical fact but, mind you, a meta-historical fact. He explains it this way: Bishop Munilla has become nervous because some dare to say that the resurrection of Christ is not a historical fact. Experts in historiography discuss what should be understood when we talk about a “historical fact.” Whatever the position that each person takes in that discussion, what seems to be safe to say is that a fact can be considered historical. when that event happens within history.

[img] [/img]

Whatever happens (or could happen) to a human being after his death, that is no longer, nor can it be within history, but beyond history. In such case, we are no longer talking about the “historical”, but rather the “ meta-historical ”. Of course, there may be people (and there are plenty of them) who, because of their beliefs (religious, philosophical or otherwise), are persuaded that a deceased person lives, either in heaven, with God, in eternity or in some other modality that humans can imagine or idealize. But, when this happens, we are no longer talking about history, but about what transcends history. In other words, one thing is “the historical” and another thing is “the transcendent.” Which may be “real,” but it is not “historical.” What's more, not content with that, he has the courage to ask what Christology the bishop has studied: I wonder what Christology  Bishop Munilla has studied .