I like what I;ve read of Ratinger's stuff, though there;s quite a lot a disagree with (mainly the really Catholic bits, oddly enough....) He's a very clear thinker, which is refreshing, and he doesn't get confused about the difference between 'this idea is not contradictory to the belief of earlier thinkers, and develops from it' and 'as this doesn't contradict anything in earlier writers, they must have believed it', which is quite rare - particularly in Catholic writings on Mary, because (as JR pointed out, though he seems to find it significantly less probelmatic than I do) the theology tends to get mixed up with their own feelings of religious devotion.
I think the real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you're supposed to be writing mediaeval literary criticism, with a bit of history of ideas and cultural history on the side, a 20th Century systematic theologian should not necessarily be your best source.....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-28 10:34 am (UTC)I think the real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you're supposed to be writing mediaeval literary criticism, with a bit of history of ideas and cultural history on the side, a 20th Century systematic theologian should not necessarily be your best source.....