{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025490196078431372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01241830065359477, 'mean_word_length': 5.051383399209486, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is There a Pneumatological Lacuna in the “Spiritual Christology” of Joseph Ratzinger?

Pro EcclEsia Vol. XXV, No. 2 Before attempting to answer the question of whether or not there is a pneumatological lacuna in the spiritual Christology of Joseph Ratzinger, it will be necessary to give an outline of his spiritual Christology. In Behold the Pierced One, a collection of Christological addresses and homilies published in 1984, Ratzinger recounts how the composition of one of these addresses, a 1981 paper on the Sacred Heart of Jesus, had led him to “consider Christology more from the aspect of its spiritual appropriation” than he had done previously. Upon realizing that this same year was the 1300th anniversary of the Third Council of Constantinople, he decided to study the pronouncements of this council, and came to believe, “much to [his] astonishment, that the achievement of a spiritual Christology had also been the Council’s ultimate goal, and that it was only from this point of view that the classical formulas of Chalcedon appear in the proper perspective.”1 Ratzinger’s conclusion in attempting to define a spiritual Christology was that “the whole of Christology—our speaking of Christ— is nothing other than the interpretation of his prayer: the entire person of Jesus is contained in his prayer.”2 On the development of his spiritual Christology, Ratzinger remarked: “I had no time [in 1981] to make a study of this particular theme, but the thought of a spiritual Christology remained with me and found its