The Heart of Paul
Yesterday the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople celebrated together First Vespers of the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Pope Benedict, in his splendid homily, inaugurated the Year of St. Paul: a year of renewed reading and meditation upon the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
The Pope’s homily is not yet posted on the Vatican website, but here is Asia News’ translation of a key passage:
In the letter to the Galatians, [Paul] provided for us a very personal profession of faith, in which he opens his heart to the reader of all times, and reveals the deep driving force of his life. ‘I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me’ (Gal. 2:20). Everything that Paul does begins from this centre. His faith is the experience of being loved by Jesus Christ in a completely personal way; it is the awareness of the fact that Christ has faced death not for some anonymous person, but out of love for him – for Paul – and that, as the Risen One, he still loves him. Christ has given himself for him. His faith comes from being transfixed by the love of Jesus Christ, a love that shakes him to his core and transforms him. His faith is not a theory, an opinion about God and the world. His faith is the impact of the love of God on his heart. And thus his faith is itself love for Jesus Christ.
Pope Benedict: “His faith is not a theory, an opinion about God and the world. His faith is the impact of the love of God on his heart. ”
Amen.
I’m constantly harping on the inadequacy of the doctrine of infallibility to establish the faith in our hearts. Just listening to a Pope say “This is the Truth” won’t convert anybody, Such papal opinions, even though they explain much, prove nothing and are not conclusive for this generation of humanity. We want, we need our own experience of the presence of the Lord in our lives. For many of us this is found in the presence of the Lord in the Mass, and this, I think, is why the Mass is central to most of those who persist in the Faith these days.
Sadly, many of the young don’t believe in His Real Presence. They want something more visible, or should I say spiritually “visible”. I hope that the Pope will come to see that the meditative practices such as Centering Prayer which are becoming rather popular in the U. S. are what the, well, semi-believers are longing for — “spirituality” rather than catechism, and that he’ll encourage the practices. Not that I think we can do without the catechism. But most of us need personal evidence as well as symbols. We need awareness of the active presence of the Lord in our own existential experience. Practices such as Centering Prayer can help open our spiritual eyes to the presence of Jesus in the “bread and wine”, and even the world outside of the Mass.
(Has Fr. Keating or Fr. Main written for Commonweal?)
“Just listening to a Pope say,”This is the Truth” won’t convert anybody. Such papal opinions, even though they explain much, prove nothing and are not conclusive for this generation of humanity.”
Actually, Ann, what the Pope says is Christ is the Truth, which is a confirmation of Christ’s direct quote, “I AM the Light, the Truth , and the Way.” Christ is The Light, The Truth, and The Way to Love. Love is about relationship. Christ Has entrusted the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ Has Founded, with the Deposit of Faith, so that His Word would remain consistent and not become a matter of opinion. There is only one Word Made Flesh. The Word, The Way we are to Love one another in communion with Him, is consistent, yesterday, today, and always.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that the doctrine of infallibility, or claims to it, will root the faith in anyone’s heart. It is good, ancient, constant Catholic teaching that without the light and grace of the Holy Spirit no one can come to believe. This was clearly taught at the First Vatican Council, which is often misrepresented as the high-point of modern Catholic rationalism. St. Thomas adduced the example of Christ himself: there were many people, he said, who heard Christ preach and witnessed his wonders, but never came to believe. Some other factor must enter in, then, he argued, and unless one is Pelagian, this can only be the inner working of the Spirit.
Nancy,
No one here is disputing that Jesus said “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life”d. The problem is: just what does that *mean*? The words must be interpreted and, words being ambiguous, there is more than one way to interpret it. True, Jesus said the Holy Spirit will be with us to the end, but what does that mean *specifically*? He also said that Peter would be the Rock on which He’d build His Church. But “Rock” is an obvious metaphore, so what does *that* mean? If you answer it means that the popes/bishops will be infallible sometimes, then I ask you how do you *know* that? If you answer: because they tell me so, and I believe them, then your faith is grounded in the testimony of mere human beings, and human beings are fallible, including them.
Jesus did not say that Peter, the Rock, will have no cracks. Nowhere does Jesus say “And the popes and bishops shall be infallible in matters of faith and morals under certain circumstances”. The question is: does Jesus *imply* that? If so, the question becomes: where and how? What is the evidence and how strong is it?
JAK says, “I don’t know anyone who thinks that the doctrine of infallibility, or claims to it, will root the faith in anyone’s heart. It is good, ancient, constant Catholic teaching that without the light and grace of the Holy Spirit no one can come to believe.”
Ann replies: I too doubt that it would ground the initial acceptance of the Faith, but that doctrine *does* root many, many people’s belief in many specific doctrines, including the the infallibility doctrine *itself. (It’s the old “Believe that I can’t err because I know what I’m talking about, so I can’t err.) There are people who just flat out believe everything that pours out of Rome, historical evidence to the contrary not withstanding.
It seems to me that historical evidence *itself* is a light on the teachings of Christ, and we ignor it at our spiritual peril. Further, it seems to me that the meanings of “Faith” is itself a big semantic problem. St. Paul’s meaning has always mystified me somewhat. It seems much, much more affective that cognitive. Which is fine, but mysterious. I always want to ask him: but what is this *feeling* that you call “Faith”? How do you know it when you find it?
Complexity, complexity.
“If you answer: because they tell me so, and I believe them, then your faith is grounded in the testimony of mere human beings, and human beings are fallible, including them.”
Ann, what justifies your use of “mere” in this remark? Or the assertion that himan beings are “fallible”? Is there something more than an unexplained denial that I missed? Consider the example of God: why would accepting God’s testimony about the infallibility of divine pronouncements be wrong? How does that differ from accepting someone who speaks for God?
“There are people who just flat out believe everything that pours out of Rome, historical evidence to the contrary not withstanding. ”
Is there something neccesarily wrong with this? I am not challenging the truth of what you are saying, but inquiring about the implied values. Why does “historical evidence to the contrary” trump belief in things that “pour out of Rome”?
Jim,
It seems to me that what Ann is getting at is the problem of historicity as a problem for the metaphysical claims of the Catholic church. If we acknowledge the fact that all interpretations of texts, persons, reality, etc. are in some sense conditioned by cultural, social, and educational location of the interpreter, the result is an acknowledgement of a degree of finitude in truth claims and the epistemic humility that follows from this fact. Although the Catholic hierarchy has clearly been resistant to all forms of historicism (at least since the papacy of JPII), certain segments in contemporary Catholic theology have for better or worse confronted this problem and placed the challenge of “historical consciousness” at the center of its theology. We Catholics have been much slower to face the challenges of modernity than Protestantism—while we were hibernating under the protective cover of neo-scholasticism liberal Protestantism was embroiled in a protracted struggle with the problem of historicism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Assessing the fruits of this struggle I am less than sanguine about ultimate consequences of full fledged historicist theologies—i.e. Ernst Troeltsch. On the other hand, I think that there is a middle ground between historicist theologies and metaphysical theologies and I think that the unfortunate tendency of Pope Benedict’s theology is to recoil from the specter of historical and cultural relativism by retreating to an ahistorical metaphysics—Platonism redux!
But, I digress. I suspect the rub of the problem here is that Ann has a different interpretation of the authority of the Catholic church and its teaching than you do. Ann, tell me if I am wrong, but it strikes me that you are pointing toward a position in which the Catholic church is a historical institution that like other historical institutions is subject to the limitations of finitude. No guarantees, no certainties, just an agonistic trust in the finite and limited teachings of the Catholic church. Jim, tell me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you hold a more orthodox or traditional interpretation of the Catholic church in which the truthfulness of its teachings are guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The whole problem of historicity is largely overcome or pushed to the side from this perspective.
“Infallibility” whether of the bishops, the laity or the Pope is a dicy concept; I see no reason why the infallibility claims of Vatican I and Vatican II cannot be interpreted in terms of the Spirit-assured indefectibility of the Church in the truth. It is a pity that Kung presented this in an antagonistic way in 1970.
A Pauline Year is an excellent idea. But let us find the real, liberating Paul, without the “introspective conscience of the West” hangups about sex and hell for which Paul is also responsible. His effect on great Europeans like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Kafka (indirectly) has been devastating and it extends very far; yet Augustine and Luther also voice the tremendous joy and liberation of the Gospel that they discovered in reading Romans and Galatians. We need a new, differentiated appropriation of Paul.
Ann,
Articles on “Centering Prayer” often appear in The Tablet (as you probably know).
I agree with your suggestion that for faith to move from the merely “notional” to the “real” it needs to be embodied in concrete practices.
If centering prayer helps to do this, I welcome it — though, with The Cloud of Unknowing, I wonder if this practice is suited for “beginners.”
The practice which I have found to be transformative for a number of young people is “eucharistic adoration.” Contrary to what some might think, it has, in my experience, fostered deeper liturgical commitment and also commitment to service.
To see seventy young men and women gathered together in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament on a Monday evening at Boston College is to bring joy to an aging priest’s heart.
Michael,
Ann and I have different interpretations of what is authoritative. She portrays a strong divide between human and divine, historical and “from Rome”, perahps even stronger than Nancy’s.
My position is that God works in and through history, such that ‘divine pronouncements’ from Rome are part of the historical evidence. When there are contradictions among the evidence, the historian revises his history to best accomodate the ‘facts’. That is different from saying one trumps the other.
The remarks from B16 on St Paul lay things out a little differently, describing God as intervening in St Paul’s life through “a love that shakes him to his core and transforms him.” What if that were contradicted by the historical evidence? He lives transformed, struggling with the historical contradictions while maintaining the transformation.
““If you answer: because they tell me so, and I believe them, then your faith is grounded in the testimony of mere human beings, and human beings are fallible, including them.”
Ann, what justifies your use of “mere” in this remark? Or the assertion that himan beings are “fallible”? ”
Jim –
If we were not fallible, we could never change our minds. We do change our minds. Ergo, we are fallible.
Because we are fallible, I think we are merely fallible creatures. Or do I misunderstand your questions? (See, another pof my mistakes. maybe?)
JIM asks: ” Consider the example of God: why would accepting God’s testimony about the infallibility of divine pronouncements be wrong? :
ANN answers: I’m not sure what you mean here. What is/are “God’s testimony about the infallibility of divine pronouncements”? So far as I know nowhere in Scripture or anywhere else does God say anything about infallibility of any sort. True, He said “Seek and you shall find”, and that includes truth, no doubt. But He doesn’t say when we will have all our questions answered. Those answers might come perfectly only in the next world.
Yes, the meanings of His words are infallible. The problem is, just what *are* His meanings of the physical signs which He pronounces — or has the writers of Scripture, etc., pronounce. A physical symbol presents only itself — it does not present its meaning. If it did misinterpretations would be impossible. A symbol has to be interpreted,, and mere human interpretations can always possibly be wrong. In other words, human interpretations are fallible, and we do not always get to God’s intended meanings of His words.
JIM quotes ANN: ““There are people who just flat out believe everything that pours out of Rome, historical evidence to the contrary not withstanding.
Jim replies: “Is there something neccesarily wrong with this? I am not challenging the truth of what you are saying, but inquiring about the implied values.”
ANN: Please do go ahead and challenge what I’m saying, Jim. Nothing wrong with that :-) Even if you hurt my feelings, it still would not be wrong. Hopefully, that’s the way we collectively eliminate errors and get closer to the fulness of truth.
What’s wrong with accepting everything from Rome is, first, Rome itself says that very few of its pronouncements are infallible. So beware of them. They might *need* criticism.
Second, because Tradition is part of history, we must use the highest sort of historical criteria fo reaching conclusions about just what Tradition has been. We mustn’t cherry-pick among the bits of evidence. We mustn’t accept only what seems to confirm what we *already* think because what we already think might be inaccurate or even flat-out wrong. and humility requires that we admit that fact.
I must admit that the super-conservatives really irritate me when they cherry-pick among the apparently conflicting pieces of evidence presented by historians. I have even known people who said about a disputed question, “I know I’m right because the Pope says it’s so” — even though history shows that popes have contradicted each others even about very, very important matters. That’s why I think it’s most unfortunate when super-conservative Catholics are identified in the media as the “orthodox Catholics”. Hmph. Who says that *they* are the orthodox ones? ???
JIM: “Why does “historical evidence to the contrary” trump belief in things that “pour out of Rome”?”
ANN: What comes out of Rome is itself supposed to be based on historical evidence and inferences from that evidence. Not only can Rome be wrong about the evidence, Rome can also make mistakes in logic. We’re all fallible, Jim.
None of this, of course, touches on just what the Holy Spirit contributes to the hierarchy’s “decision” making processes concerning matters of faith and morals. Just what are t he special graces that come with their office? And how do we know when the hierarchy is co-opoerating with the Holy Spirit’s gifts? Another mysterious issue.
“Ann, tell me if I am wrong, but it strikes me that you are pointing toward a position in which the Catholic church is a historical institution that like other historical institutions is subject to the limitations of finitude. No guarantees, no certainties, just an agonistic trust in the finite and limited teachings of the Catholic church. ”
Michael –
Mmmm. Mostly right but not entirely I don’t think that the Church is *exactly* like any other human institution. There is, I think, a great deal of evidence that indicates that it was indeed founded by the Son of God. Yes, indeed our *knowledge* of it is subject to the limitations of being human, but God Himself is part of the Church and is limitless. True, there are no absolulte guarantees as to the authenticiy of the Church’s claims about itself, but there are no absolute guarantees of any knowledge except of the simplest acts of knowing the simplest things that are present to consciousness, e.g., a patch of red.
This is why we must always beware of complexity. Enter the complex and enter the possibility of error. But neither I nor the people I think I know (except for the schizophrenics perhaps) are really talking about that sort of absolute kowledge when we say “I know . . .”. This ambiguity of “I know” does lead to some confusions sometimes, and this is another reason I think we need a complete theological epistemology, one which includes a philosophy of theological language,.
I think that certainty is not a criterion of truth (I’m with Aquinas there). Certainty is a feeling about some purported knowledge, and we can have degrees of certainty. The highest degree makes us feel better, but then when we find our feeling was unjustified we can be devastated. This is another reason why I think people avoid asking the hard questions about faith. We’re only human. Sigh.
I don’t know that I’d say that the *teachings* of the Church are limited. I’d say that our *understandings* of those teachings are limited. The teachings include God’s meanings of the symbols, the symbols include “God”, and God is infinite. Or so I have evidence, reason to believe.
“I agree with your suggestion that for faith to move from the merely “notional” to the “real” it needs to be embodied in concrete practices.
“If centering prayer helps to do this, I welcome it — though, with The Cloud of Unknowing, I wonder if this practice is suited for “beginners.””
Fr. Imbelli –
Fr. Thomas Keating, the splendid Trappist teacher of Centering Prayer, says that he and a couple of other older Trappists found that the young monks at their abbey were not doing contemplative prayer (!), so they decided to distill the teachings of The Cloud of Unknowing, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, into their essentials. They came up with this extraordinarily simple method of prayer (though Fr. Keating dislikes the term “method”). The senior monks discovered that the young ones weren’t terribly impressed with it, but the lay people who attended retreats at their abbey loved it.
It’s not easy, but as Fr. Keating says, you really can’t fail at it. It is simply intending to accept the presence and action of God within you.. Easier said than done because accepting the action of God within means accepting His will, and as one young student put it “You have to mean it”. Sigh. Seems to me it would be perfect at Eucharistic Adoration. I agree — the general discontinuance of that practice is a sad, sad thing for the Church.
For those who have never tried a simple contemplative kind of prayer (a kind which is non-verbal, non-imaginative, etc.) you might like to try Centering Prayer. It’s especially useful these days because it doesn’t require a great deal of time. Five minutes is better than nothing.
Here’s a brief description and how to do it.
http://www.centeringprayer.com/methodcp.htm
Here’s the home page for Contemplative Outreach (which pushes contemplative prayer for everyone, especially Centering Prayer):
http://www.centeringprayer.com/frntpage.htm
Father Keating will tell also you about the ancient practice of lectio divina at:
http://www.centeringprayer.com/lectio/lectio.htm
Ann,
ALL “of this, of course, touches on just what the Holy Spirit contributes to the hierarchy’s “decision” making processes concerning matters of faith and morals.”
When you say that “the hierarchy” is “merely human”, you exclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit is part of the process. It simply does not follow that because something is human, it is “merely” human; if it did, then the Incarnation would have been impossible.
I agree with you that there are always problems with words and meanings and whether they can be understood properly or the truth in them recognized. But even within that context we can have an expeience of God that shakes us to our core and transforms us. That reality cannot be reduced to the notions expressed, or the words used, which is what you appear to be doing with the word “mere”. Nor can that reality be contradicted by history. (assuming we mean history refers to something real, and not just our fallible memories or our fallible accounts of our fallible memories)
Ann, if the Magisterium, (Pope Benedict XVI and those Bishops in communion with him) is not the teaching authority of the Church, that church would be Protestant.
“It is a pity that Kung presented this in an antagonistic way in 1970.”
Easy for us to say when we were not as betrayed by other reformists who gave in to the pressure of Rome. Because of Kung the Curia is a lot more careful than it was. He paved the way for other prophets in the church to keep the leaders honest and responsive; a continual herculean task. Many of the accepted Reforms in the church are due to Kung, although few give him the credit.
History will be kinder to Kung than so many prelates who sold out the gospel and chose accommodation over the true message. Many Catholics chose to follow their consciences, like Jesus, over the errors of existing leaders, due to Kung’s solid example.
“Easy for us to say when we were not as betrayed by other reformists who gave in to the pressure of Rome.”
True enough. Rahner should have taken up Kung’s proposal and put it forward more irenically. His defensive reaction showed his limits as a theologian; though in his original basic orientation Rahner was a visionary liberator of Catholic thought.
” Because of Kung the Curia is a lot more careful than it was. He paved the way for other prophets in the church to keep the leaders honest and responsive; a continual herculean task.”
Herculean is the word. Benedict’s Jesus book recycles all the banal caricatures of scriptural exegesis in the most insidious fashion, as pointed out by Pierre Gibert in April’s “Recherches de science religieuse.” On every other theological front he has been equally obscurantist. AND he has been the most powerful intellectual in the Roman Church for the last thirty years. The mass of the faithful are spellbound by this authoritarian retrogression. So it is easy to understand that many have given up what seems a losing battle.
“Many of the accepted Reforms in the church are due to Kung, although few give him the credit.” Yes, reading the second volume of his autobiography I realized, though I would never have thought so once, that Kung is a greater theological figure than Rahner or Schillebeeckx, not to mention the obnoxious von Balthasar. They are all erudite and clever, but Kung uses his learning more functionally to liberate and enlarge gospel vision. He has the broader vision of church, world, and other religions.
” History will be kinder to Kung than so many prelates who sold out the gospel and chose accommodation over the true message. Many Catholics chose to follow their consciences, like Jesus, over the errors of existing leaders, due to Kung’s solid example.” Amen.