July 15: St. Bonaventure
The mind of Joseph Ratzinger was formed on that of St. Bonaventure,
and therefore was present in the document Dei
Verbum of Vatican II. The meaning of
faith in Dei Verbum of Vatican II is
a development from Vatican I. As John Paul II remarked to Andre Frossard:
Remarks concerning the nature of faith as found in Dei Varbum #5 of Vatican II of John Paul II to Andre Frossard (1981): “According to the teaching of the apostles,
faith finds its fullness of life in love. It is in love that the confident
surrender to God acquires its proper character and this dimension of
reciprocity starts with faith.
“Thus while the old definition
in my catechism spoke principally of the acceptance as truth ‘of all that God
has revealed’ [Vatican I], the conciliar text [Vatican II], in speaking of
surrender to God, emphasizes rather the personal character of faith. This does
not mean that the cognitive aspect is concealed or displaced, but it is, so to
speak, organically integrated in the broad context of the subject responding to
God by faith….
“Before I tell you how I am
inclined to conceive this commitment, allow me to examine once again the
fundamental meaning of this word in the light of the confident surrender to
God.
“I have already drawn your
attention to the difference between the catechism formula, ‘accepting as true
all that God reveals,’ and surrender to God. In the first definition faith is
primarily intellectual, in so far as it is the welcoming and assimilation of
revealed fact. On the other hand, when the constitution Dei verbum tells us that man entrusts himself ato God ‘by the
obedience of faith,’ we are confronted with the whole ontological and
existential dimension and, so to speak, the drama of existence proper to man.
“In faith, man discovers the
relativity of his being in comparison with an absolute I and the contingent character of his own existence. To believe is
to entrust this human I, in all its
transcendence and all its transcendent greatness, but also with its limits, its
fragility and its mortal condition, to Someone
who announces himself as the beginning
and the end, transcending all that is
created and contingent, but who also reveals himself at the same time as a Person
who invites us to companionship, participation and communion. An absolute
person - or better, a personal Absolute.
“The surrender to God through
faith (through the obedience of faith) penetrates to the very depths of human
existence, to the very heart of personal existence. This is how we should
understand this ‘commitment’ which you mentioned in your question and which
presents itself as the solution to the very problem of existence or to the
personal drama of human existence. IPt is much more than a purely intellectual
theism and goes deeper and further than the act of ‘accepting as true what God
has revealed.’
“When God reveals himself and
faith accepts him, it is man who sees
himself revealed to himself and confirmed in his being as man and person.
“We
know that God reveals himself in Jesus Christ and that at the same time,
according to the constitute ion Gaudium
et spes [22], Jesus Christ
reveals man to man: ‘The mystery of man is truly illumined only in the mystery
of the Word incarnate.”
“Thus these various aspects,
these different elements or data of Revelation turn out to be profoundly
coherent and acquire their definitive cohesion in man and in his vocation. The essence of faith resides not only in
knowledge, but also in the vocation, in the call.
For what in the last analysis is this obedience of faith by which man displays
‘a total submission of his intelligence and will to the God who reveals
himself’? It is not simply hearing the Word and listening to it (in the sense
of obeying it): it also means responding to a call, to a sort of historical and
eschatological ‘Follow me!’ uttered both on earth and in heaven.
“To my mind, one must be very
conscious of this relation between knowledge and vocation inherent in the very
essence of faith if one is to decipher correctly the extremely rich message of
Vatican II. After reflecting on the whole of its content, I have come to the
conclusion that, according to Vatican II, to believe is to enter the mission of
the Church by agreeing to participate in the triple ministry of Christ as
prophet, priest and king. You can see by this how faith, as a commitment,
reveals to ur eyes ever new prospects, even with respect to its content.
However, I am convinced that at the root of this aspect of faith lies the act
of surrender to God, win which gift
and commitment meet in an extremely
close and profound way;” Be Not
Afraid, St. Martin’s Press (1981)64-67.
Joseph Ratzinger
This development from “all
that God has revealed” (intellectualist) to “surrender to God” (personalist), takes its root in the mind of
Joseph Ratzinger and his presence and activity in the Council concerning that
document, and that very point. Ratzinger wrote his thesis in the fall of 1953,
and the Council convened from 1962-1965. With regard to the content of Dei Verbum, he commented that
“The
Council Fathers did not come together with the intention simply of adopting
ready-made texts and, so to speak, rubber-stamping them but, in accord with
their office, of struggling to find the word that had to be said in that hour.
There was the idea that we had to take the task in hand ourselves, not in order
to turn the faith upside down, but, on the contrary, to serve it properly. In
this sense, Frings’ introductory speech (which had points in common with that
of Cardinal Lienart of Lille) actually put into words the common awareness
already present among the Fathers.”
So what did you write in this speech?
“The very first one was not written by me, nor was it a
speech in the strict sense. The situation was that proposals had already been worked
out in Rome for the composition of the Curia, the commissions. And the
expectation was that there would be an immediate vote on the basis of those proposed
lists. Now, many of the Father didn’t want that. Then both Cardinal Lienart and
Cardinal Frings rose to their feet and said that we cannot simply vote at this
time, that we have to get in contact with one another in order to find out who
is suitable for what, that the elections have to be postponed. That was the
first drumbeat at the beginning of the Council. When you reflect, it wasn’t all
that rabid, either. It was normal for them to try themselves to find suitable candidates.
That was an impulse that came spontaneously to both of them and that also
corresponded to the desires of the assembly.
“The second thing… was that, concretely, when the text on
revelation was to be proposed for discussion, Cardinal Frings – and there,
admittedly, I did play a part – explained that the text as it was then worded
was not an adequate starting point. It was, he said, necessary to start from
the ground up, to rework the document within the Council itself. That really
sounded the alarm. It was what really first led to the saying that we will
rework the texts ourselves.”[1]
The
effect of his intervention is to be found in part in #5 of Dei Verbum: “ ‘the obedience of faith’ (Rom. 16, 26; cf. Rom 1, 5;
2 Cor. 10, 5-6) must be given to God as he reveals himself. By faith man freely
commits his entire self to God, making ‘the full submission of his intellect
and will to God who reveals,’ and willingly assenting to the Revelation given
by him. Before faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move
and assist him….”
How
does this relate to his thesis of 1953? In short, the Ratzinger thesis can be
understood in the following:
“I had ascertained that in Bonaventure (as well as in
theologians of the thirteenth century) there was nothing corresponding to our
conception of ‘revelation,’ by which we are normally in the habit of referring
to all the revealed contents of the faith’ it has even become part of
linguistic usage to refer to Sacred Scripture skimpily as ‘revelation.’ Such an
identification would have been unthinkable in the language of the High Middle Ages.
Here, ‘revelation’ is always a concept denoting an act. The word refers to the
act in which God shows himself, not to the objectified result of this act. And
because this is so, the receiving subject is always also a part of the concept
of ‘revelation.’ Where there is no one to perceive Revelation,’ no re-vel-action has occurred, because no veil has been removed. By definition,
revelation requires a someone who apprehends it. These insights, gained through
my reading of Bonaventure, were later on very important for me at the time of
the conciliar discussion on revelation, Scripture, and tradition. Because, if
Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in
Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation
is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again
means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura because an essential element of Scripture is the Church
as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already
given.”[2]
How
does this square with his 1953 thesis?
“Now we
can also understand why it is that in the programmatic introduction to the Sentence Comentary Bonaventure refers to
the theologian as the revelator
absconditorum and to theology as the corresponding revelation absconditorum. In the light of this, it should be obvious
enough what a difference lies between Bonaventure’s view and any actualistic
misinterpretation of it. We can express this difference as follows. The
understanding which elevates the Scripture to the status of ‘revelatin’ is not
to be taken as an affair of the individual reader; but is realized only in the
living understanding of Scripture in the Church. In this way the objectivity of
the claim of faith is affirmed without any doubt. If we keep this in mind, we
can say that without detriment to the objectivity of the faith, the true
meaning of Scripture will be found only by reaching behind the letters.
Consequently the true understanding of revelation demands of each individual
reader an attitude which goes beyond the merely ‘objective’ recognition of what
is written. In the deepest sense, this understanding can be called mystical to
distinguish it from all natural knowledge. In other words, such an understanding
demands the attitude of faith by which man gains entrance into the living
understanding of Scripture in the Church. It is in this way that man truly
receives ‘revelation.’
“With
this, the historico-theological consequences begin to emerge more clearly. For
it is obvious that mere faith is only the lowest level of such a mystical
penetration into Scripture. The stages of faith are also atages of mysticism;
and in such a viewpoint, they are seen naturally as stages of revelation as well. Revelatio refers not to the letter of Scripture, but to the understanding
of the letter; and this understanding can increased. If now we were to assume a
period of time in which the power of true mystical elevation were granted to
all men, then… we could refer to uch a time in an entirely new way as a time of
revelation. On the other hand, we would have to admit that the real meaning of
the age of the New Testament, which consists in revelation, has been realized up to now in a limited degree. It is
clear that Bonaventure does not view this final future revelation to consist in
a new Scripture.… Instead, it will consist in a new understanding of the old
and enduring Scriptures, which would be closer to the meaning of Joachim
himself. For this reason… Bonaventure
can emphasize the definitive character of the New Testament despite, or rather,
precisely because of his hope for a new revelation.”[3]
St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei:
All of
this gives me pause when considering the perspective of the founder of Opus
Dei. I repeat texts that I posted yesterday that are apposite to this
present-day experience of the present Christ.
“Try never to hold
yourself aloof from those scenes. In God’s presence, see yourself as one of the
characters there, and react as you would have if, twenty centuries ago, you had
really been at our Lord’s side. For Jesus Christ lives. He lives! St. Paul has
told us so: Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula! (Hebr. 13, 8)
(Family reunion of Opus Dei, April 5, 1971).
Thus St. Josemaria
became intimately acquainted with the Son of God’s life on earth. “For
we do need to know it well, to have it in our heart and mind, so that at any
time, without any book, we can close our eyes and contemplate his life,
watching it like a movie. In this way the words and actions of our Lord will
come to mind in all the different circumstances of our life.
His contemplation of these texts enabled St. Josemaria to use them in his
preaching with extraordinary force, stirring souls to read the life of Jesus. “We
have to live in the times of Jesus and become a character in his epoch. The
whole secret of our sanctity lies in becoming like Him. He is our model.
Therefore we read the Gospels daily, so that we will never lack the fuel that
enkindles the fire of our love.
We should read the Gospels with a sincere desire to listen to Jesus, to
identify ourselves with him. St. Josemaria advises. “Mingle with the
characters who appear in the New Testament. Capture the flavor of those moving
scenes where the Master performs works that are both divine and human, and
tells us, with human and divine touches, the wonderful story of his pardon for
us and his enduring Love for his children. These foretastes of heaven are
renewed today, for the Gospel is always true: we can feel, we can sense, we can
even say we touch God’s protection with our own hands.”
No comments:
Post a Comment