The Resurrection of the Dead
For All Souls Day, from Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life by Joseph Ratzinger:
“The Body of Christ” means that all human beings are one organism, the destiny of the whole the proper destiny of each. True enough, the decisive outcome of each person’s life is settled in death, at the close of their earthly activity. Thus everyone is judged and reaches his or her definitive destiny after death. But their final place in the whole can be determined only when the total organism is complete, when the passio and actio of history have come to their end. And so the gathering together of the whole will be an act that leaves no person unaffected. Only at that juncture can the definitive general judgment take place, judging each one in terms of the whole and giving him or her that just place which they can receive only in conjunction with all the rest.
Here is a theological query. One of our homilists yesterday quoted approvingly the motto of a public speaker who gives parish missions in this area: something along the lines of, ‘strive to be the best possible version of yourself’.
Yet I also understand that the best possible version of me is, without Christ’s salvific act, still a fallen sinner. Thus, to be the best version of myself would seem to me to be open to the outpouring of grace and to cooperate with God’s working in my life.
Is this, then, on what we shall be judged at death?
I have a theological query of my own.
What is it about death that seems to make it the endpoint of our existence as moral agents? It would seem that after we die, we are judged once and for all based on our lives. (Of course, a great many human persons who die before reaching the age of reason don’t have anything to be judged on.) Those who go to hell would appear to have no possibility of repenting and making amends. Those who go to purgatory are cleansed in some way, but once they get to heaven they seem to be in no danger of sinning again, at least not seriously enough to forfeit heaven. One might argue that once you encounter God as directly as you do in heaven, you still have free will, but you wouldn’t want to sin. But Catholic tradition says that some of the greatest of the angels rebelled against God.
If we meet someone in heaven who committed a terrible wrong against us, will all be instantly forgiven and forgotten? Will everyone automatically love everyone else, in spite of how they felt about each other on earth?
I bought this book recently and hope to get around to reading it.
Here’s another query.
The passage Fr. Imbelli cites concludes with these words: “…judging each one in terms of the whole and giving him or her that just place which they can receive only in conjunction with the rest.”
Does this passage mean that the final judgment will be made in comparative terms, thus A is better than B, but not so good as C?
What does it mean to say that each one is judged “in terms of the whole?” What is this “whole?”
Or should all this be taken as figurative language, not as literal language? Is the term judgment used, as I would be inclined to think, figuratively, rather than literally?
What we do during our lives surely matters, to God, to others, and to ourselves. It belongs to the nature of human actions that they are imputable as either praiseworthy or blameworthy. But how one would assess a whole human life is, at least for us, something else again. I wouldn’t know how to begin to go about doing so or, for that matter, guessing how God might go about it.
What does it mean to say that each one is judged “in terms of the whole?”
I hope it means grading on a curve. That always worked to my advantage at Ohio State.
Could this be RELATIVISM?
Thanks for posting this beautiful and complex excerpt.
“The Body of Christ” means that all human beings are one organism, the destiny of the whole the proper destiny of each.”
Much to ponder.
Mr. Dauenhauer,
for me, one of the attractions of this book is Ratzinger’s careful discussion drawing upon the Church’s tradition, coupled with a deep appreciation of the limits of our language and an abiding respect before the mystery.
You write: “But how one would assess a whole human life is, at least for us, something else again. I wouldn’t know how to begin to go about doing so or, for that matter, guessing how God might go about it.”
I suggest that in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead we have the paradigmatic instance of God’s judgment of a whole human life. The resurrection of Jesus is our only basis for theologically grounded speaking about eschatology and our final destiny.
Ratzinger is concerned that we do not deprecate the materiality and hence temporality of God’s good creation (as the gnostics did and do). Hence his reflection upon the whole of history as not being immaterial to the destiny of each.
Mr. Gannon,
Ratzinger insists not on relativism (for in Christ God has revealed the truth of the human condition), but upon relationism (for we are truly members of one body and hence of each other).
Mr. Nickol,
your “curve” continues to work better than A.J. Burnett’s.
your “curve” continues to work better than A.J. Burnett’s
Fr. Imbelli,
Sophisticated interpretations of Catholic doctrine often raise, in my mind, questions about very basic assumptions on which whole edifices are built. So I ask questions. The question I raised in this thread, and the question I recently raised about what C. S. Lewis said on the topic of existence after death, were both honest questions, and I didn’t see them as “curves.”
You recent said, “What is the tone we encounter (and perhaps contribute to) on blogs? Is it divisive, derisive, dismissive?” I can’t help but feel that your remarks about my “curves” are not only dismissive of my questions, but of me personally. I would prefer to be ignored than dismissed, so please don’t feel you need to acknowledge my questions if you think they don’t belong here.
One of the pleasures of the afterlife may well be finding with relief and delight that it is nothing like the tidy speculations of limited human beings, even theologians. I hope so, anyway.
Dear Mr. Nickol,
I apologize. I had not understood that your comment –
“What does it mean to say that each one is judged ‘in terms of the whole?’
I hope it means grading on a curve. That always worked to my advantage at Ohio State” — was meant as an “honest question.”
Thanks, Fr. Imbelli, for your response to my query.
If I understand you correctly, the passage in question is meant more to allude to features of what the Second Coming will amount to rather than an attempt to describe it or its features.
I’ve been reading the 3rd volume of Pelikan’s “The christian Tradition ,” which takes up issues like faith and reason, grace and nature, and predestination and free will. I confess that I’m perplexed by what Pelikan reports. I realize that I have to accept the possibility that some people will be eternally punished for their how they have lived their lives. Yet I find it hard to see just how the medieval theology answers to the se topics is convincing.
I’ve also read Gerald O’Collins’s “Salvation for All.” He of course does not claim that all people will be saved, but he does argue that that it is defensible to hope that all will be saved. This hope makes sense to me, more than the passage that you cite from the pope’s book. I find it easier to hope that God will find a way to save everyone, by lovingly drawing them (and me) to repent and accept what He offers. The passage in question from the pope’s book seems to reflect the logical implications of a literal sense of justice, a justice of the sort that we discuss in philosophy without regard to the Bible.
I would appreciate your comment about all this, should you find the time.
Fr. Imbelli,
I was referring to my question of November 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. (second comment in the thread, beginning, “I have a theological query of my own,” and filled with questions) and recalling your remark to me in another recent thread in which you said, “Your curve ball is just what the Yankees need in the playoffs. Thanks for the link. But let’s keep this post on topic.” Consequently, when you said, “your ‘curve’ continues,” I took it to be a reference to the previous slap on the wrist (probably deserved) for going off topic, and I actually didn’t connect it with my remark about grading on the curve.
Apologies if I misunderstood your remark or if I am incorrectly reading into your response of November 3rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm a tone you did not intend.
I find it easier to hope that God will find a way to save everyone, by lovingly drawing them (and me) to repent and accept what He offers.
Bernard Dauenhauer:
If I am not mistaken, this touches on my question above (November 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm), since if someone dies unrepentant, the current presumption is that they are forever somehow fixed in an unrepentant state and spend eternity in hell. If we can repent after death, that leaves a lot more room for the hope that everyone might be saved.
Someone on Vox Nova recommended Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? by Hans Urs von Balthasar, which I have but have not read yet. I don’t know at what point he hopes repentance is still possible, but I suppose the book will be a good beginning point for me on the issue in any case.
Mr. Nickol,
the challenges of communication! I was rushing off to class and had in view only the latest comments that I saw on the thread. Hence your tongue in cheek Ohio State curve prompted my tongue in cheek Yankee curve. No more was intended.
Mr. Dauenhauer,
you probably know that von Balthasar has a book, “Dare One Hope that All May Be Saved?” for which he was criticized by some. I confess I do not understand how one could not so hope. If one has tasted something of the beauty of the Lord, is not one impelled to desire that all might share it?
I think you would appreciate the Pope’s book. I do not find it harsh or over-reaching.Here is a further quote which may speak to some concerns you articulate above:
“In terms of the sum total of decision from out of which an entire life is constructed, this final direction may be, in the end, a fumbling after readiness for God, valid no matter what wrong turnings have been taken by and by. Or, again, it may be a decision to reject God, reaching down into the deepest roots of the self. But this is something that only God can determine. He knows the shadows of our freedom better than we do ourselves. But he also knows of our divine call and unlimited possibilities. Because he knows what human weakness is, he himself became salvation as truth, yet without stripping himself of the dignity that belongs to truth.”
My comment passed that of David Nickol in cyberspace. We have been reconciled thanks to Hans Urs von Balthasar! Who’d have predicted it?
This is all so embarrassing I may just have to look elsewhere for imaginary slights!
And here I thought “curve” referred to the accidental italics.
Thanks, Fr. Imbelli. The passage you cite in your Nov. 3 posting is well worth pondering.
So refreshing that so many are addressing each other as Mr. or Fr. The world has to be better for it. Does this pave the way for mercy? Now am I being snarky, satirical or just making sense?
If I am not mistaken, Origen was the first theologian to propose seriously and explicitly that all might be–in fact I think he believed that all would be–saved. Have such views been more common in the East? It also seems to me that the Russian Orthodox theologian Nicholas Berdaev (spelling uncertain) held that all would be saved, even his cat! And I have just found on the shelf a Thematic Anthology of Origen’s writings edited by Urs von Balthasar. I think the Pauline promise of God as all in all is invoked,
“all would be saved, even his cat!”
I’m totally serious about this: I think this is a *huge* area of pastoral concern that could use some addressing: what happens to Fifi or Bowser after they die? Will my kids be able to see our first cat in heaven? (I have a less optimistic opinion as to the state of his soul :-)).
I would think that, if you were to poll your parishioners on Sunday morning as they leave the church, interest in this question would outweigh interest in the Pope’s outreach to disaffected Anglicans by at least 100 to 1.
Jim
I understand that Kenneth Clark, the art historian who produced the Civilisation series for TV, at the end of his life became an RC. His son Alan is said to have considered the same option but when the RC priest told him he could not expect to enjoy the company of his dogs in heaven and the C of E priest took a more reassuring position, Alan Clark decided to stay with the C o E.
Sorry, that’s C of E.