Surrender as Triumph
The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once remarked that he and Karl Rahner dwelt on different theological “planets.” Perhaps more has been made of this passing comment than is warranted. But, as I re-read Rahner, I am newly convinced that their planets circle the same Sun.
Pope Benedict has been offering a series of catecheses on prayer at his weekly audience. This past Wednesday he reflected on the famous account in the Book of Genesis of Jacob’s wrestling with the unknown stranger. The voice is Benedict’s, but the touch feels close to Rahner. Here is an excerpt:
The biblical text speaks to us of the long night of the search for God, of the battle to know his name and to see his face; it is the night of prayer that, with tenacity and perseverance, asks a blessing and a new name from God, a new reality as the fruit of conversion and of forgiveness.
In this way, Jacob’s night at the ford of the Jabbok becomes for the believer a point of reference for understanding his relationship with God, which in prayer finds its ultimate expression. Prayer requires trust, closeness, in a symbolic “hand to hand” not with a God who is an adversary and enemy, but with a blessing Lord who remains always mysterious, who appears unattainable. For this reason the sacred author uses the symbol of battle, which implies strength of soul, perseverance, tenacity in reaching what we desire. And if the object of one’s desire is a relationship with God, his blessing and his love, then the battle cannot but culminate in the gift of oneself to God, in the recognition of one’s own weakness, which triumphs precisely when we reach the point of surrendering ourselves into the merciful hands of God.
The rest is here.
Checking on Rahner and Ratzinger i came upon this jewel written by Francis Schussler Fiorenza (husband of the more famous ES Fiorenza who was badly treated by Notre Dame)
which casually mentions the disagreements with Rahner, among other things. http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/33-2_fiorenza.html
Schussler had the good fortune to study with Rahner, Ratzinger, Kasper and Metz. Here is one of the comments Fiorenza made.
“Ratzinger’s emphasis on ecclesial authority in the interpretation of scripture, his critique of the dominance of the historical critical approach, and his appeal to patristic resources for the interpretation of scriptures have remained constant features of his theological writings.”
This is one of the key problems with Ratzinger as I see it: his reliance on the Fathers of the Church. Ratzinger and most fail to see that the Fathers presided over the most radical corruption of the church which was not really widely challenged until Vatican II. Interesting when Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza showed Ratzinger how Scripture favored women’s ordination, Ratzinger acknowledged her scholarship and simply reverted to the authorities of the Fathers. This misunderstanding of tradition has really caused shipwrecks throughout the history of the church.
But one can understand the need for such “tradition” of absolute authority which allows the pope to wave his magic wand. After all who would not want to be immune to all lawsuits, freedom from all debts and remission of all sins merely by making a pilgrimage. Just look to Quantum praedecessores Eugene III:
“Moreover since those who war for the Lord should by no means prepare themselves with precious garments, nor with provision for their personal appearance, nor with dogs or hawks , other things which portend licentiousness: we exhort your prudence in the Lord that those who have decided to undertake so holy a work shall not strive after these things, but shall show zeal and diligence with all their strength in the matter of arms, horses and other things with which they may fight the infidels. But those who are oppressed by debt and begin so holy a journey with a pure heart, shall not pay interest for the time past, and if they or n t others for them are bound by an oath or pledge i ‘ he matter of interest, we absolve them by apostolic authority. It is allowed to them also when their relations, being warned, or the lords to whose fee they belong, are either unwilling or unable to advance them the money, to freely pledge without any reclamation, their lands or other possessions to churches, or ecclesiastical persons, or to any other of the faithful. According to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, by the authority of almighty God and by that of St. Peter the chief of the apostles, conceded to us by God, we grant such remission and absolution of sins, that he who shall devoutly begin so sacred a journey and shall accomplish it, or shall die during it, shall obtain absolution for all his sins which with a humble and contrite heart he shall confess, and shall receive the fruit of eternal retribution from the Remunerator of all.”
Since reading the catechesis I’ve been dwelling on a great (and long) hymn by Charles Wesley. The hymn is virtually unknown, I believe, in Catholic circles. Here’s a nicely updated treatment: http://youtu.be/hfVUGob7Uvw
COME, O thou Traveller unknown,
Whom still I hold, but cannot see!
My company before is gone,
And I am left alone with thee;
With thee all night I mean to stay,
And wrestle till the break of day.
I need not tell thee who I am,
My misery and sin declare;
Thyself hast called me by my name,
Look on thy hands, and read it there;
But who, I ask thee, who art Thou?
Tell me Thy name, and tell me now.
In vain thou strugglest to get free,
I never will unloose my hold!
Art thou the Man that died for me?
The secret of thy love unfold;
Wrestling, I will not let thee go,
Till I thy name, thy nature know.
Wilt thou not yet to me reveal
Thy new, unutterable name?
Tell me, I still beseech thee, tell;
To know it now resolved I am;
Wrestling, I will not let thee go,
Till I thy name, thy nature know.
’Tis all in vain to hold thy tongue
Or touch the hollow of my thigh;
Though every sinew be unstrung,
Out of my arms thou shalt not fly;
Wrestling I will not let thee go
Till I thy name, thy nature know.
What though my shrinking flesh complain,
And murmur to contend so long?
I rise superior to my pain,
When I am weak, then I am strong
And when my all of strength shall fail,
I shall with the God-man prevail.
My strength is gone, my nature dies,
I sink beneath Thy weighty hand,
Faint to revive, and fall to rise;
I fall, and yet by faith I stand;
I stand and will not let Thee go
Till I Thy Name, Thy nature know.
Yield to me now, for I am weak,
But confident in self-despair;
Speak to my heart, in blessings speak,
Be conquered by my instant prayer;
Speak, or thou never hence shalt move,
And tell me if thy name is Love.
‘Tis Love! ’tis Love! thou diedst for me!
I hear thy whisper in my heart;
The morning breaks, the shadows flee,
Pure, universal love thou art;
To me, to all, thy bowels move;
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
My prayer hath power with God; the grace
Unspeakable I now receive;
Through faith I see thee face to face,
I see thee face to face, and live!
In vain I have not wept and strove;
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
I know thee, Saviour, who thou art.
Jesus, the feeble sinner’s friend;
Nor wilt thou with the night depart.
But stay and love me to the end,
Thy mercies never shall remove;
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
The Sun of righteousness on me
Hath rose with healing in his wings,
Withered my nature’s strength; from thee
My soul its life and succour brings;
My help is all laid up above;
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
Contented now upon my thigh
I halt, till life’s short journey end;
All helplessness, all weakness, I
On thee alone for strength depend,
Nor have I power from thee to move;
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
Lame as I am, I take the prey,
Hell, earth, and sin, with ease o’ercome;
I leap for joy, pursue my way,
And as a bounding hart fly home,
Through all eternity to prove
Thy nature and thy name is Love.
Thanks, Father Imbelli, for seeking common notes in contemporary theology. Ratzinger and Rahner were formed in the ressourcement method of theology — also an important theological method of the Council (the use of ressourcement on these shores being another question). They varied in their approach to aggiornamento. So what would be more natural than conversation and koinonia?
Common interests of Ratzinger and Rahner seem to appear in the very first section of Deus Caritas Est. Pope Benedict’s opening sentence cites 1 John 4:16 (“God is love…”) and calls this “the heart of the Christian faith.” Rahner’s foundational essay, “Theos in the New Testament” (TI, vol 1), states that of all that has been learned in salvation history “the decisive thing is that out of his grace God the Father has called us in his Son to the most intimate communion with him: it is summed up in the proposition: ho theos agape estin (1 Jn 4:16).” (p. 117). At the end of that section Rahner wrote: “But this depends inseparably on the fact that God, as Person, freely wished to love us; and in the knowledge of this truth the entire reality of Christianity is contained.” (p. 125)
The next paragraph of the encyclical begins: “We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life.” Pope Benedict’s use of “fundamental decision” seems much more like Rahner’s fundamental option than the popular caricature. And all this in section one! A hat tip to Rahner?
Joseph,
A hat tip to you for pointing to the Sun that both these great theologians seek to serve.
Here is another pointer. In his classic, “Introduction to Christianity,” Ratzinger has this tribute to Rahner: “This whole chapter is much indebted to this important article.” The article in question is Rahner’s “What is a Dogmatic Statement?”
Let’s try to touch base in San Jose.
Father Imbelli,
Another “planet” that influenced both Ratzinger and Rahner was Romano Guardini.
i look forward to a visit.
Joseph
There’s a beautiful reflection, with art and some poetry, on Jacob’s wresting at a very fine blog from England: http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2011/05/struggle.html
All new to me. I never stopped to think about it except as a slightly muddled mythical story. Much to think about. Wonderful!
Richard,
thank you for the link. I wish I had the facility to incorporate art the way the author of “Idle Speculations” is able to do. Keep sending links and making connections!
The Idle Speculations post includes Hopkin’s poem Carrion Comfort:
NOT, I’ll not, carrion comfort, Despair, not feast on thee;
Not untwist — slack they may be — these last strands of man
In me ór, most weary, cry I can no more. I can;
Can something, hope, wish day come, not choose not to be.
But ah, but O thou terrible, why wouldst thou rude on me
Thy wring-world right foot rock? lay a lionlimb against me? scan
With darksome devouring eyes my bruisèd bones? and fan,
O in turns of tempest, me heaped there; me frantic to avoid thee and flee?
Why? That my chaff might fly; my grain lie, sheer and clear.
Nay in all that toil, that coil, since (seems) I kissed the rod,
Hand rather, my heart lo! lapped strength, stole joy, would laugh, chéer.
Cheer whom though? the hero whose heaven-handling flung me, fóot tród
Me? or me that fought him? O which one? is it each one? That night, that year
Of now done darkness I wretch lay wrestling with (my God!) my God.
Kathy,
Thanks for posting the Hopkins’ poem. It’s long been one of my favorites in its terrible way — “not choose not to be.”
But I confess, somewhat to my chagrin, that I had never formally connected it with the Genesis incident. Perhaps it was there subliminally, but I was not explicitly aware.
As Clare said: wonderful!
I really enjoyed Benedict’s reflection/teaching, but I continue to stumble when I encounter battle metaphors for prayer, though I realize they are ubiquitous in our theology. For me, there’s a disjunction between, “Prayer requires trust, closeness, in a symbolic ‘hand to hand’ not with a God who is an adversary and enemy,” and “for this reason the sacred author uses the symbol of battle” since it seems that “struggle” would get at the ideas of perseverance, tenacity, etc. Even a game/competition metaphor–wrestling–would work better for me. I suppose battle does make sense in the ancient context, probably still does as a masculine metaphor. It’s not that I prefer touchy-feely metaphors for the Divine-Human relationship. I guess it’s just as much as I’ve been bemused, frustrated, terrified, disappointed, and pissed at God, I’ve never thought of the connection as adversarial, which to me seems implicit in the battle metaphor, whether explicated in the Jacob story or in other discussions of prayer/relationship with God.
(PS, the Jacob story reminds me of making plans for a sleepover with a neighbor kid and telling my folks, “Debbie says when she comes over she can’t eat filet mignon because of Jacob.” Mom said, “Well you can’t eat it because you’re poor. Either way, you’re both having spaghetti.”)
Mary,
I’d certainly go for spaghetti agli e olio or linguine col pesto rather than wrestling with a 10 ounce piece of beef, whatever the cow was called!