19. We must look briefly at the two essential stages in the political realization of this hope, because they are of great importance for the development of Christian hope, for a proper understanding of it and of the reasons for its persistence. First there is the French Revolution””an attempt to establish the rule of reason and freedom as a political reality. To begin with, the Europe of the Enlightenment looked on with fascination at these events, but then, as they developed, had cause to reflect anew on reason and freedom. A good illustration of these two phases in the reception of events in France is found in two essays by Immanuel Kant in which he reflects on what had taken place. In 1792 he wrote Der Sieg des guten Prinzips über das böse und die Gründung eines Reiches Gottes auf Erden (“The Victory of the Good over the Evil Principle and the Founding of a Kingdom of God on Earth”). In this text he says the following: “The gradual transition of ecclesiastical faith to the exclusive sovereignty of pure religious faith is the coming of the Kingdom of God.” 17 He also tells us that revolutions can accelerate this transition from ecclesiastical faith to rational faith. The “Kingdom of God” proclaimed by Jesus receives a new definition here and takes on a new mode of presence; a new “imminent expectation”, so to speak, comes into existence: the “Kingdom of God” arrives where “ecclesiastical faith” is vanquished and superseded by “religious faith”, that is to say, by simple rational faith. In 1795, in the text Das Ende aller Dinge (“The End of All Things”) a changed image appears. Now Kant considers the possibility that as well as the natural end of all things there may be another that is unnatural, a perverse end. He writes in this connection: “If Christianity should one day cease to be worthy of love … then the prevailing mode in human thought would be rejection and opposition to it; and the Antichrist … would begin his””albeit short””regime (presumably based on fear and self-interest); but then, because Christianity, though destined to be the world religion, would not in fact be favoured by destiny to become so, then, in a moral respect, this could lead to the (perverted) end of all things.” 18
20. The nineteenth century held fast to its faith in progress as the new form of human hope, and it continued to consider reason and freedom as the guiding stars to be followed along the path of hope. Nevertheless, the increasingly rapid advance of technical development and the industrialization connected with it soon gave rise to an entirely new social situation: there emerged a class of industrial workers and the so-called “industrial proletariat”, whose dreadful living conditions Friedrich Engels described alarmingly in 1845. For his readers, the conclusion is clear: this cannot continue; a change is necessary. Yet the change would shake up and overturn the entire structure of bourgeois society. After the bourgeois revolution of 1789, the time had come for a new, proletarian revolution: progress could not simply continue in small, linear steps. A revolutionary leap was needed. Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation””towards what Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God”. Once the truth of the hereafter had been rejected, it would then be a question of establishing the truth of the here and now. The critique of Heaven is transformed into the critique of earth, the critique of theology into the critique of politics. Progress towards the better, towards the definitively good world, no longer comes simply from science but from politics””from a scientifically conceived politics that recognizes the structure of history and society and thus points out the road towards revolution, towards all-encompassing change. With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution””and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia.
Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized””which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.
This is an amazing piece of work. One can’t help but compare this to the mindless drivel that we so often see from Episcopal Church leaders. The exegesis, the sense of history, the breadth of knowledge–all are amazing. There is much richness here on the subjects of atheism, over-individualistic faith, serving others, and–perhaps most powerfully–suffering.
But what theologically struck me–and I’d be most interested in the thoughts of others who have read this–is what appears in paragraphs 45-48 to be a substantial rethinking of the notion of Purgatory–indeed, perhaps even a total rejection of the Roman Church’s teaching on the subject heretofore. Benedict seems to accept (or at least not condemn and offer as a true possibility) the notion that the intermediate state is not that at all, but that the purification is in fact one that happens at the moment of judgement, when one is confronted by the purity and holiness of Christ. He then goes on to explain why this does not negate the value of prayers for the departed, taking on a rationale not terribly different from that C.S. Lewis offered for the practice. I find it interesting that press reports so far seem not to have picked up on this apparent change (or beginnings of change) in the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.
Thoughts, anyone?
I spoke too soon. The Telegraph has an article from Christopher Howse which discusses the shift on purgatory. Here’s what he writes:
[blockquote]In interpreting the words, the Pope is surprisingly hospitable to a speculation by “some recent theologians” that “the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us.”
This, then, is a reformulation of the doctrine of Purgatory, which in the past has been a stumbling-block to many Protestants. Pope Benedict is familiar, from his career as an academic theologian, with currents in German Protestant thinking. But in whatever way the idea of Purgatory is to be understood, the Pope is not abandoning the concept of praying for the dead.
In defending prayers for the dead, he echoes John Donne and writes: “No man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another.” No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. “So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death.”[/blockquote]
Full Telegraph article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/01/do0109.xml
Praying for the departed as an act of hope.
No, the Pope is not abandoning the notion of Purgatory, but he is putting it in its real context. And I think that is also going to be welcomed by Protestants.
This comment is provisional, since I haven’t read the text. However, it should be noted that the Catholic Church teaches very little about purgatory, if you check the Catechism. Popular piety, devotion, and cultural accretions (particularly in the medieval period) are more extensive than the actual doctrine.
Aside from scripture, is there much archaeological evidence in the catacombs and elsewhere of a tradition of prayers for the dead in the very early Church?
Re #1:
The paragraphs on judgment and purgatory (41-48) are particularly noteworthy, but they are not surprising, if one has read Benedict’s book on eschatology, nor is his view unusual in the Catholic Church. Peter Kreeft’s discussion of purgatory in his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven evidences that similar construals of purgatory have become established in the popular Catholic mainstream. Note also John Paul II’s description of God’s purifying love:
“The ‘living flame of love,’ of which Saint John speaks, is above all a purifying fire. The mystical nights described by this great Doctor of the Church on the basis of his own experience correspond, in a certain sense, to purgatory. God makes man pass through such an interior purgatory of his sensual and spiritual nature in order to bring him into union with Himself. Here we do not find ourselves before a mere tribunal. We present ourselves before the power of Love itself. Before all else, it is Love that judges. God, who is Love, judges through love. It is Love that demands purification, before man can be made ready for that union with God which is his ultimate vocation and destiny.”
But VaAnglican is right to note the significance of affirming this construal of purgatory in a magisterial document.
Sometime around AD 200, Tertullian wrote,
“As often as the anniversary [of a popular Christian’s martyrdom] comes round, we make offerings for the dead… If, for these and other such rules, you insist on having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer.”
So, the practice was well-established as a historical custom to Christians raised in the second half of the second century, and thus presumably must date at least to the beginning of the second century or end of the first century.
The authobiography of St, Perpetua, circa AD 203, also records her prayers for her dead brother.
Re: #5,
Yes. In Rome, there are graffiti dating (the earliest no later than ca. 160; many more over the next century) many of which offer a brief petition for a departed (and/or entombed) person, and others of which invoke one or more saints (above all others, SS Peter & Paul) to pray for particular persons (it is not clear for the most part whether living or dead).
We must take atheism seriously. Most atheists are also materialists. One can philosophically defeat the various forms of materialism: physicalism, behaviourism, materialism, but then one must establish a metaphysics and defend it. This metaphysics informs us as to our theology, ethics, etc.
“physicalism, behaviourism, [should have been] functionalism.
Pope Benedict said
“…Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.”
This statement should have been publically made during the 1920s and 1930s and ‘internalized’ by world leaders and ‘would-be’ revolutionaries.
The incompleteness and destructiveness of Marxism combined with the romantic fascination of immature adult minds with Max’s promise of ‘heaven on earth’ has led to some of the worst atrocities against human beings in world history.
I spent almost thirty years of my professional life studying and preparing to deal and dealing with with preventing Marxists from wreaking havoc in the world.
All that I have personally witnessed of revolutionary ‘Marxism in action’ and of the horrific after effects of ‘Marxism in action’ have clearly proven to me that Marxism is an ideology fatally flawed at its most elementary level and at its most elementary building block.
That building block is the individual human being. Its not through the revolutionary destruction of human society that the world will be improved, but through the transformation of individual human beings.
Marx should have read the Bible and understood that the problems of human society come from the flawed nature of mankind (Original Sin) and that it is by Salvation through Jesus Christ that the behavior of human being can be changed. That “changed human behavior” then translates to positive societal changes in the mortal realm of earthly existance.
However, even though Marxism has been discredited among informed and intelligent/thinking people, it is still alive and well among our college faculty members and in such countries as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, etc. It is in incipient stages in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, etc.
All I can say is wow. Being a Roman Catholic, I definitely love Benedict XVI, but this encyclical certainly inspired me. Honestly, I couldn’t help but see the Anglican crisis in this, after all, certain provinces within Anglicanism have enthusiastically embraced the modernist movements that the pope accuses of relying on the “kingdom of men” rather than God. Perhaps the reason TEC is declining so rapidly is that it offers no hope. It’s a thought.
11, it all comes back to the basic problem, which Hagel and Marx deny or ignore, and that is human sin. The human being does not change. We sin at the drop of a hat. “And there is no health in us!”
From the encyclical, regarding the nature of purgatory:
[i]In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire†so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. [/i]
The Orthodox have always critiqued popular and semi-official Catholic teachings on Purgatory. In this encyclical, I see Benedict moving back towards a more Orthodox understanding of the state “after-death-and-before-Judgement”. (And the notion of Christ as the purificatory “fire” brings to mind Orthodox notions of “[url=http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm]the river of fire[/url]”.) In fact, Benedict (in his pre-Pope years) suggested that any future re-union of Catholic and Orthodox would not require the Orthodox to accept post-1054 developments in Catholic ecclesiology and papal jurisdiction. This encyclical seems to be part of Benedict’s larger plan for eventual re-union.
I am only halfway through the encyclical. It is a glorious respite from reading about the fractious nature of the AC.
Here are some of my favorite passages from the encyclical. I am interested in comments from others, and I am interested in reading other’s favorite passages.
[blockquote] Saint Augustine, in a homily on the First Letter of John, describes very beautifully the intimate relationship between prayer and hope. He defines prayer as an exercise of desire. Man was created for greatness—for God himself; he was created to be filled by God. But his heart is too small for the greatness to which it is destined. It must be stretched. “By delaying [his gift], God strengthens our desire; through desire he enlarges our soul and by expanding it he increases its capacity [for receiving him]â€. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] His Kingdom is not an imaginary hereafter, situated in a future that will never arrive; his Kingdom is present wherever he is loved and wherever his love reaches us. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] . Jesus, who said that he had come so that we might have life and have it in its fullness, in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10), has also explained to us what “life†means: “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent†(Jn 17:3). Life in its true sense is not something we have exclusively in or from ourselves: it is a relationship. And life in its totality is a relationship with him who is the source of life. If we are in relation with him who does not die, who is Life itself and Love itself, then we are in life. Then we “liveâ€. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] Man can never be redeemed simply from outside. Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that modern Christianity, faced with the successes of science in progressively structuring the world, has to a large extent restricted its attention to the individual and his salvation. In so doing it has limited the horizon of its hope and has failed to recognize sufficiently the greatness of its task[/blockquote]
[blockquote] Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is. If God does not exist, perhaps I have to seek refuge in these lies, because there is no one who can forgive me; no one who is the true criterion. Yet my encounter with God awakens my conscience in such a way that it no longer aims at self-justification, and is no longer a mere reflection of me and those of my contemporaries who shape my thinking, but it becomes a capacity for listening to the Good itself. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] And we cannot—to use the classical expression—â€merit†Heaven through our works. Heaven is always more than we could merit, just as being loved is never something “meritedâ€, but always a gift. However, even when we are fully aware that Heaven far exceeds what we can merit, it will always be true that our behaviour is not indifferent before God and therefore is not indifferent for the unfolding of history. We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good. [/blockquote]