Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/2564
This work is posted on eScholarship@BC,Boston College University Libraries.
Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2012
Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
Joseph Ratzinger's Theology of theWord: The Dialogical Structure of HisThought
Author: Christopher Collins
BOSTONCOLLEGE
JOSEPHRATZINGER’STHEOLOGYOFTHEWORD:THEDIALOGICALSTRUCTUREOFHISTHOUGHT
ADISSERTATIONSUBMITTEDTOTHEFACULTYOFTHESCHOOLOFTHEOLOGYANDMINISTRY
INCANDIDACYFORTHEDEGREEOFSACREDTHEOLOGYDOCTORATE
BY
REV.CHRISTOPHERCOLLINS,SJ
CHESTNUTHILL,MA
MAY2012
JosephRatzinger’sTheologyoftheWord:TheDialogicalStructureofHisThought
BasedonhisroleasaperitusatVaticanIIintheshapingoftheConstitutiononDivineRevelation,DeiVerbum,RatzingerreflectedbackonthedeliberationsattheCouncilsoonafteritsconclusionandindicatedthatthenewdevelopmentofunderstandingofRevelationwasthatRevelationistobeseen“basicallyasdialogue.”InhisIntroductiontoChristianity,hewouldindicatethatbecauseoftheexperienceofJesusChrist,theChurchcomestoseethatGodisnotonlylogos,butdia‐logos.Throughouthistheologicalandpastoralcareer,Ratzinger,nowBenedictXVI,consistentlyreliesupontheframeworkof“dialogue”astheprincipleofcoherenceforhowheattemptstoarticulatetheoneChristianmystery,whetherheisspeakingofRevelation,Christology,ecclesiology,eschatologyoranyotherareaofChristiantheology.IwillattemptinthispresentationtotracesomeofthemajorsourcesofinfluenceinRatiznger’sintellectualandtheologicalformationthathasresultedinhisrelianceuponthis“dialogicalstructureofthought”thatgroundshistheologicalhermeneutic.
i
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER1.TheTheologicalFormationofJosephRatzinger 6
BriefBiography 7 I.FormedbyaLovingTradition 9 TheWordSpokenatHome 11 SeminaryFormation 12 ANewBiblicalPointofDeparture 13 ALiturgicalHorizon 15 TheInfluenceoftheFathers 19
PhilosophicalPersonalism 23II.APost‐ConciliarTheologicalAlternative 27 III.Conclusion:ADialogicalVisionFormed 33AMoreHistorical,SpiritualandPastoral
SystematicTheology 35LogosManifestedasLove 36
CHAPTER2.“RevelationBasicallyasDialogue” 38
I.FoundationsinBonaventure’sTheologyofHistory 40 Controversy:Ratzinger’sDialogicalStructureof
Revelation 44DifferentLevelsofMeaninginScripture 45RevelationUnfoldinginHistory:TheManySemina
ofOneLogos 48ChristasCenter,notEnd,ofHistory 50HistoricalConsciousness 52II.QuaestioDisputata:“Tradition”inDeliberationsof
DeiVerbum 54III.DeiVerbum:Revelation“SeenBasicallyasDialogue”64SettingAsideNeo‐scholasticismfortheLanguageof
Shepherds 67DeiFiliusandRevelationasExtrinsic 69TraditionasExpressiveofRevelation 71BonaventurianEchoesinDeiVerbum 73RevelationinVerbumDomini 73IV.DirectionsforExegesisandTheology 76DogmaandBible 77V.JosephRatzinger’sDialogicalTheologyofRevelation 83Conclusion:RevelationasHistoricallyUnfolding
Dialogue 85
ii
CHAPTER3.JesustheChrist:EternalLogos‐Made‐LoveinHistory 87
I.TheFullnessofGod’sRevelation 89TheHistoricalJesusAccessedThroughaHermeneutic
ofFaith 92ChristandtheScandalofParticularity 94ChristDeterminingTheologyandAnthropology 99II.ChristUnitingFaithandHistory 102ASpiritualChristology 104TheUnfoldingoftheMeaningofLogos 108FromRatiotoVerbumandVerbum 112LogosasPerson 113APersonattheCenterofChristologyandSoteriology 117III.ThePersonofChristasKeytoScriptureand
Tradition 118PersonasSon 122DoubleRevelationoftheIncarnationandCross 124TheFatherKnowninPrayer 128TheRisenChristDrawingHumanitytotheFather 130ChristologicalBasisofEcclesiology 132Conclusion:ChristRevealedandTrulyKnownin
theChurch 136CHAPTER4.ChurchastheLocusofDivine‐HumanDialogue 138
I.ChurchasPlaceofDialogueBetweenGodandHumanity 139
Logo‐basisofLumenGentium 140II.Christological‐PneumatologicalTensionof
theChurch 142DominusIesus 146EcclesiaSemperReformandaEst 149TheSaintsastheNormativeMajorityoftheChurch 151ObediencetotheWord 153III.Ratzinger’s“CommunioEcclesiology” 154BiblicalFoundationandLiturgicalExpressionof
Communio 159RelationofChristandtheChurch:Liturgical
ConfirmationofaBiblicalVision 160IV.ThePriorityofRevelationforChurch 164TheListeningChurch 165MarianPatternofListeningtotheWordintheChurch 168EcclesialKnowingofChrist 170V.ChurchRealizedinTrinitarianCommunion 172“BeholdHimWhomTheyHavePierced” 174VI.Mission:SpeakingtheWordtotheWorld 175
iii
TheChurch’sOfferingtotheWorld 178VII.WordEncounteredinLiturgy:DialogueMadeFlesh180Conclusion:TheActualizationoftheDialogue 186
CHAPTER5.WordSpokenfromBeginningtoEnd:CreationandEschatology 189
I.ContextofRatzinger’sContributions 192TheChallengeofPoliticalTheology 193De‐MythologizedExegesis 196II.WordSpokenintheOrdersofCreationandHistory 198TheLinkBetweenCreationandHistory 201DeathastheChallengetoLogos 203TheDifferenceChristMakes 204III.WordSpokeninDeath:BasisofaRenewed
Eschatology 207TheExegeticalProblemofanImminentEnd 212“SchemaandReality” 214HermeneuticoftheWordinHistory 215DiscoveringtheKingdominPerson 216EschatologyandHistoricalConsciousness 218Maranathavs.DiesIrae 220SpeSalvi 212HopeinEnteringthe“I”ofChrist 228V.DialogicalFulfillmentofResurrection 230Resurrectionasre‐creationinhistory 235VI.HumanFreedomandDivineLoveintheFinal
Judgment 236HellandHeaven 238Conclusion:EternalDialogue 243
EPILOGUE 245
BIBLIOGRAPHY 248
1
Introduction
Aftertwoyearsofpastoralserviceinmyfirstassignmentasapriestonthe
PineRideIndianReservationinSouthDakota,IcamebacktoBostontobegina
doctoralprograminsystematictheology.Inspeakingwithmydirector,Khaled
Anatolios,beforetalkingaboutanythingregardingmyacademicprogram,heasked
meaboutmypastoralexperienceonthePineRidge.Idescribedthefamiliar
narrativeoflifeandstrugglesonthereservationincludingthemassive
unemployment,breakdownoffamilystructures,violence,alcoholism,etc.Itseemed
thatnoneofthesocial,politicalorevenreligiousinstitutionsworkedverywellto
addresstheseneeds.ItalsoseemedthatinthatenvironmentnothingItriedtodo
programaticallyasapastorworkedeither.Nonewinitiativesofmineboreanyfruit.
NobodyseemedtoointerestedinnewwaysofbeinginvolvedintheChurch.
However,whatdidwork,Itoldhim,onaregularbasis,wastheliturgy.Nomatter
howbrokendownalltheotherinstitutionsandactivitiesseemedtobe,forme,
especiallyinmysensitivityasanewpriest,itwaspalpablehow“effective”the
liturgywas.EveniftenortwelvepeoplewerethereforaSundaymass,oritwasa
funeralmasswhereinonlyahandfulofpeoplemightcomeforcommunion,
somehow,bypayingattentioninanewwaytotheprayersbeingsaid,knowingabit
ofthepersonalstoriesofthepeopleinthecongregationincludingmuchofthe
sorrowandpainintheirhistoriesaswellassomethingofthehopesforsomething
newintheirlives‐allofthismadeforaprofoundencounterthatIhadtheprivilege
ofstandinginthemiddleofeveryday.Ilistened,inasense,withnewearstowhat
ChristwasspeakingtohispeoplegatheredaroundhimintheEucharistandIheard
2
withnewearstheresponseandthepleaofthesesamepeople.Therewasspeaking
andlistening…silence.Therewasdialoguethatwasveryfragileandonthesurface,
notappearingtoachievemuch.ButIhadaprofoundsensethatthisencounter‐this
dialogue‐wastheonlythingthatworkedduringmytimeon“theRez.”
AsIdescribedthissituation,Khaledsaid,“Wellwhydon’tyouwriteabout
that?”AndsoIhave.Withthatpastoralandspiritualexperienceasakindof
catalystfortheresearchandwritingIhavetakenupinthelastcoupleofyears,I
cametosettleonthefigureofJosephRatzinger,nowPopeBenedictXVI,asaguide
andanexemplarofacontemporarytheologianwhodoestheology,itseemstome,
withaprofoundpastoralandspiritualsensibility.Ihadneverreadhimbeforehe
waselectedpope.Afterthat,Iwouldoccasionallyseeoneofhishomiliesorangelus
addressesthathewouldgiveinordinarypastoralsettings.Iwasstruckbythe
simultaneoussimplicityandprofundityofhiswords.Itwascaptivatinghowhe
couldsosuccinctlyencapsulatethemysteryoftheencounterwithChristinsucha
concreteandsimple,narrativemanner.Againandagain,hewouldreiteratethat
Christianityisnotasetofideastobelieveorevenless,moralprinciplesorlawsto
follow.Rather,Christianityisaboutapersonandspecifically,thequestionofour
ownencounterwiththatperson.HestressesrepeatedlythatGodhasspokento
humanity,ultimatelyandmostperfectly,inthepersonofJesusChrist.
ThemoreIreadofRatzinger’stheologyaswellashispreaching,Igradually
cametodetectaverybasicstructureinhiswork.Whetherhewasspeakingofthe
liturgicalseasonofAdvent,themysteryofChrist’ssufferingontheCross,thelifeof
3
anygivensaintortheneedforjusticeandsolidarityinabrokenpoliticalandsocial
structure,onewayoranother,Iwouldalwayscatchaglimpseofhismethodthat
describedthetransformationthathappensbyenteringintoapersonalencounter,
intodialogue.ThisisthewayhearticulatesthewholeoftheChristianvision,it
seemstome.AndsoIhaveattemptedtotracethispattern,todescribethis
dialogicalprincipleofcoherenceinvariousanddivergingaspectsofhisthought.
RatzingerseesGodastheonewhospeaks.Humanityisbestunderstoodasthose
wholistentoGod’sWordandthenareabletorespond.Godandhumanityare
dialoguepartners.Buttheyarenotequals,either.Thisisadialoguethatis
necessarilyasymmetrical.Itmatterswhospeaksthefirstword.ForRatzinger,God
isalwaystheonetakingtheinitiative.Andhumanityisalwaysinthepostureof
responsiveness.SoforRatzinger,allofrealityisdialogical,butdialogicalinan
asymmetricmanner.Indeed,evenintheveryessenceofGodthereisdialogical
communicationandcommunionintheeternalTrinitarianrelations.Butheretoo,
thereisanasymmetrytothiscommunication.Thepriorityofspeechalwayslies
withtheFather.Furthermore,notonlyistheinnerlifeoftheTrinityasymmetrically
dialogicalbutthissameGodalsocommunicatesHimselfincreationandinhuman
history.Thiscommunicationthatunfoldsthroughouthumanhistoryculminatesin
speakingHimselfinthepersonofJesusChrist.Thebasicstructureofallreality,then,
isdialogue.Myaiminthisdissertationistoshowhowthisdialogical,
communicativestructurethatisnecessarilyalwaysunfolding,istheuniquewaythat
JosephRatzingerconstructshistheology.Assuch,Iargue,herepresentsaunique
4
contributiontotherenewaloftheologythatismorepersonalisticandtherefore
moreresponsivetocontemporaryculture.
BeforeshowingthewayinwhichRatzingerdoestheologyinthisdialogical
manner,IwillbegininthefirstchapterwithabriefexpositionofwhatIthinkare
themostsignificantdimensionsofhisowntheologicalformationthatproduced
suchacommunicative,dialogicalapproachtotheology.Havingprovidedasynopsis
ofRatzinger’sintellectualformationandtheearlyexpressionofhistheological
scopeofconcern,thesubsequentchaptersofthisdissertationwillattemptan
expositionofhowthe“dialogicalstructure”ofRatzinger’sthought,basedonthe
eternalLogosofGodcommunicatedbothineternityandinhumanhistory,provides
aframeworkforthewholeofhistheology.Inchapter2,Iwillfocusonhowthis
communicationoftheEternalLogospertainstohistheologyofrevelationthathe
seesasnecessarilyinvolvingtheactivereceptionofGod’sWordbyGod’speoplein
history.Inthethirdchapter,IwillexaminetheChristologyofRatzingerthatfollows
thissamedialogicalframeworkwhereinGod’sspeakingoftheWordisnotonlythe
sourceofanintelligiblecreationbutalsobecomesthecenterofhumanhistorywhen
thatWordbecomeshuman.Inthefourthchapter,Iwillgiveanexpositionof
Ratzinger’secclesiologythatflowsdirectlyfromhisChristologysothattheChurch
becomestheprivilegedplacetoencounterthefullnessoftheWordinJesusChrist.
SpecialattentionwillbegiventotheroleoftheliturgyinRatzinger’secclesiologyin
thisrespect.Finally,inthefifthchapterIwilldescribetheimplicationsofthis
dialogicalframeworkforarenewedeschatologyandtheologyofcreationthat
especiallyprovidesabasisforthetheologicalvirtueofhopethatisofsuchconcern
5
forBenedictinthecurrentculturalandreligiouscontext.Throughoutallthese
aspectsofhistheology,itwill,Ihope,becomeevident,howthisdialogicalstructure
oftheWordofGodbeingspoken,heardandrespondedto,providesabasisfora
contemporarykindof“personalistic”theologythatisnarrativeinitstextureand
providesanalternativetotheabstractioncharacteristicofmuchofmodern
theology.Insodoing,anexemplarcanbefoundinJosephRatzinger,ofatheologian
whoisabletocommunicatethecontentoftheCatholicfaithinamanneraccessible
notonlytotheminds,butalsotheheartsofhiscontemporaryaudience.
6
Chapter1
TheTheologicalFormationofJosephRatzinger
Ashebeganhisopeninglectureofthelastcoursehewouldeverteach,aclasson
thetheologyofPopeBenedictXVI,AveryCardinalDullesremarked,"Therealleader
oftheseminar,undertheHolySpirit,willbePopeBenedicthimself.Byvirtueofhis
intelligence,hislearning,andthepositionshehasheld,heisinmyjudgmentthe
mostimportantCatholictheologianoftheday."1Benedictcanperhapsbe
consideredassuchnotonlybecauseofhisroleasprefectoftheCongregationforthe
DoctrineoftheFaithfornearlyaquarterofacenturyandthenastheelected
successorofPeter,butbecausehehassoclearlycultivatedhistheologicalprojectin
thepatterncalledforintheSecondVaticanCouncilinreturningtothesourcesof
Scripture2andthepatristictraditionwhilebeingconsciouslyopentotranslatingthe
Gospelinamodeintelligibletothemodernworld,accordingtothesignsofthe
times.3WhetherornotonemightagreewithDulles’assessment,itisclearthatin
thelandscapeofCatholictheologyattheendofthetwentiethcenturyandthe
beginningofthetwenty‐first,JosephRatzinger,nowPopeBenedictXVI,standsout
asamajorfigurewhohasservedasacatalysttowardencouraginganapproachto
theologythatsimultaneouslyinvolvesareturnadfontestobiblicalandpatristic
1Classlecturenotes,January16,2008.ThankstoSisterAnnMarieKirmsie,OP,thelong‐timesecretaryofCardinalDullesatFordhamUniversityintheBronx,NewYorkforthisreference.2AustinFlannery,VaticanCouncilII:TheBasicSixteenDocuments:Constitutions,Decrees,Declarations(Northport,N.Y.:Dublin,Ireland:Costello;DominicanPublications,1996),“DeiVerbum”#24.3MatthewL.LambandMatthewLevering,VaticanII:RenewalwithinTradition(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008).SeeespeciallyFrancisMartin’schapter,“RevelationandItsTransmission”,55ff.MartinseesDeiVerbumastakingitsplaceinthe“ecclesialcontinuity”alongwiththepatristictradition,oftheongoingproclamationoftheGospel.
7
sourcesandatthesametimeonethatisabletospeakthenewlanguageof
personalismhungeredforincontemporaryculture.4
InthisfirstpartoftheopeningchapterIwilloutlinethecontoursofJoseph
Ratzinger’sownintellectualandtheologicalformationthatcontributedtothe
developmentofhis“dialogical”approachtothetheologicaltask.Basedlargelyon
hisowndescriptionofthisformationfromhismemoirs,5Iwilldescribefirsthis
embracingofanewemphasisinCatholictheologyinthemiddleofthetwentieth
centuryonplacingbiblicalexegesisattheforeofsystematicanddogmatic
theologicalmethod.Second,Iwilldescribetheimportancehecametoplaceonthe
liturgyasasourcefordoingtheology.Third,Iwillexaminetheinfluenceofthe
patristictraditiononhisthought.FinallyIwillindicatethelinkshediscoveredwith
contemporaryphilosophicalpersonalism,especiallythroughthethoughtofMartin
Buber’s“dialogicalphilosophy”.
BriefBiography
JosephRatzingerwasbornandbaptizedonthesameday,April16th,1927‐Holy
Saturday‐atMarktlAmInninGermany.Hestudiedphilosophyandtheologyfrom
1946to1951attheHigherSchoolofPhilosophyandTheologyofFreisingandatthe
UniversityofMunich.HewasordainedapriestonJune29th,1951andtaughtbriefly
attheHigherSchoolofFreising.In1953heobtainedhisdoctorateintheologywith
4JohnW.O'Malley,WhatHappenedatVaticanII(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2008).AconsistentthemeforO’Malleyisthenew“style”indicativeofVaticanIIthatspeakstotheheartsandmindsofmorecontemporarypeople.Thisstyleincludesaresponsivenesstotherealityofthe“turntothesubject”inmodernphilosophyandtheology.5JosephRatzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998).
8
athesisentitledVolkundHausGottesinAugustinsLehrevonderKirche(ThePeople
andHouseofGodinAugustine’sDoctrineoftheChurch).6Fouryearslater,underthe
directionofGottliebSöhngen,professoroffundamentaltheology,hewroteasecond
thesis,theHabiliationsschriftthatmadehimeligibletoteachinaGermanuniversity.
DieGeschichtstheologiedesheilegenBonaventura,7publishedin1959,wastranslated
intoinEnglishin1989underthetitle,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure.
AfterlecturingatFreising,hewentontoteachattheuniversitiesinBonnfrom1959
to1963,atMünsterfrom1963to1966andatTübingenfrom1966to1969.In1969,
heassumedthechairofdogmaticsandhistoryofdogmaattheUniversityof
Regensburg.ForthedurationoftheSecondVaticanCouncil,from1962to1965,he
servedasaperitus,atheological“expert,”forCardinalJosephFrings,Archbishopof
Cologne.In1977,hewasnamedArchbishopofMünchen‐FreisingbyPopePaulVI
andservedthereuntil1981whenhebecamethePrefectfortheCongregationfor
theDoctrineoftheFaith.Hewasnamedacardinalthatsameyear.Ratzinger
servedPopeJohnPaulIIinthiscapacityfortheremainderofhispontificateand
ultimatelysucceededhimtotheChairofPeteronApril19,2005.
Writingadissertationonalivingfigurepresentsitsownsetofadvantagesas
wellaschallengesofcourse.Ontheonehand,thereisnodoubtastothe
contemporaryrelevanceofthetheologyofJosephRatzinger,nowPopeBenedict
XVI.Atthesametime,newworksofhiscontinuetomaketheirwayontothe
6JosephRatzinger,VolkundHausGottesinAugustinsLehrevonderKirche(München,K.Zink,1954).7JosephRatzinger,DieGeschichtstheologiedesheilegenBonaventura(Munich:SchnellandSteiner,1959).
9
ecclesialandtheologicalsceneliterallyonadailybasis!Inconsiderationofthis
problem,Ihavechosentolimitmuchofmyanalysistohisscholarlytheological
workspublishedpriortohiselectiontotheChairofPeteronApril19,2005.Iwill,
therefore,largelyrefertothetheologiannamedJosephRatzinger.Still,inorderto
illustratethepastoralexpressionofsomeofhisearliertheologicalinsights,Iwill
occasionallymakeuseofmorerecenthomilies,addresses,apostolicexhortations
andencyclicallettershehasofferedinhiscapacityasuniversalpastorofthe
CatholicChurch,PopeBenedictXVI.Whenreferringtotheseworks,Iwillreferto
theirauthorasBenedict.
I.FormedbyaLivingTradition
Inattemptingtoprovideasenseoftheunfoldingoftheearlyintellectualand
specificallytheologicalformationofJosephRatzinger,itisworthmentioning
immediatelyhow,inhindsight,hehasconceivedofhisowntheologicalmethod
throughout.InthecourseofanextendedinterviewwithPeterSeewald,heexplains:
Ihavenevertriedtocreateasystemofmyown,anindividualtheology…IsimplywanttothinkincommunionwiththefaithoftheChurchandthatmeansaboveall,tothinkwiththegreatthinkersofthefaith.Forthisreason,exegesiswasalwaysveryimportant.Icouldn’timagineapurelyphilosophicaltheology.ThepointofdepartureisfirstofalltheWord.8
Thisbriefsentimentgivesaclearsenseofthecontoursofhistheologicalvision,his
desiretooperatewithinthecommunioofthewholetraditionandtodosoalways
basedfirstandforemostontheWordofGod,particularlyasencounteredinSacred
8JosephCardinalRatzingerandPeterSeewald,SaltoftheEarth:ChristianityandtheCatholicChurchattheEndoftheMillenium(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1997),283.
10
Scripture.Histheologyhasalwaysconsciouslybeenorderedtowardthepastoral
goodoftheChurch.Theentréeintohistheologicalreflectionisalwaysthroughthe
gatewayofScripture,theinterpretationofwhichisalwaystobedoneinthecontext
ofthebroaderecclesialcommunionofinterpreters.Furthermore,inorderto
undertakethisinterpretationwellandwithclarity,itisalwaystobedone,in
Ratzinger’sview,throughanexplicitlyChristologicallenssincethefigureofJesus
Christ,theWordmadeflesh,isthefullnessofthedialoguebetweenGodand
humanity.
ButRatzinger’stheologyoftheWorddoesnotlimititselftoanadintra
discussionamongChristiansalone.ByappealingtotheancientcategoryofLogos,
notunliketheearlyChurchFather,JustinMartyr,9Ratzingermakesacasetothe
worldbeyondtheChurchfortheintelligibilityofallofcreation‐humanexistencein
particular‐inlightoftheWordbeingspokenbyGodthatisthebasisforallreality.
Insodoing,heprovidesachallengetopost‐modernrelativismthathascalledinto
questionthehumancapacitytodiscoverandknowtruth.10Hemakesthiscasenot
onthebasisofabstractionandrationalisticargumentationbutratherprimarilyon
thebasisofthenarrativeofsalvationhistory.Asthishistoricalnarrativeunfolds,
theLogoscomestobeknownasaperson,asloveitself.TheLogos,then,becomes
thebasisforamorepersonalsenseoftheChristianmysteryforbelievers
themselvesandalsoprovidesacriterionfordialoguewithsecularculture.
9JustinMartyr,TheFirstandSecondApologies(AncientChristianWriters).TranslatedbyLeslieW.Barnard,(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,1997).10Thepope’snowfamouslectureatRegensberg,intendedprimarilyfortheacademiccommunity,hadthisthemeasitsprimaryfocus.JamesV.Schall,TheRegensburgLecture(SouthBend,Ind.:St.Augustine'sPress,2007).
11
TheWordSpokenatHome
TheimportanceforRatzinger’stheologyoftheWordspokenandheard,andthe
subsequenttransformationinthe“heareroftheWord”,stemsfromaprofound
philosophicalandtheologicalframeworkcarefullycultivatedthroughouthis
intellectualformation.Butitalsocarriesweight,forRatzinger,preciselybecauseit
derivesfromandisconfirmedinthemostordinaryandextraordinarymomentsof
hisownpersonallife.Inafewratherpoignantmomentsinhismemoirs,Ratzinger
indicateshowthemysteryofthepowerofhumancommunicationisreflectiveofthe
ultimatemysteryoftheWordofGodcommunicatedfrometernityinhumanhistory.
Inthecourseofhisfather’sdeathherecalls,“Weweregratefulthatwewereableto
standaroundhisbedandagain,showhimourlove,whichheacceptedwith
gratitudeeventhoughhecouldnolongerspeak.”11Andagain,atthetimeofhis
mother’sdeath,hewouldspeakaboutthismysteryofthetruthoflovebeing
communicatedinlifeandperhapsmostpoignantlyindeathintermsofthe
theologicalframeworkhehadbeenbuilding:“OnthedayafterGaudeteSunday,
December16,1963,sheclosedhereyesforever,buttheradianceofhergoodness
hasremained,andformeithasbecomemoreandmoreaconfirmationofthefaith
bywhichsheallowedherselftobeformed.Iknowofnomoreconvincingprooffor
thefaiththanpreciselythepureandunalloyedhumanitythatthefaithallowedto
matureinmyparentsandinsomanyotherpersonsIhavehadtheprivilegeto
11Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,119.
12
encounter.”12Thetangible,intimateandexpressivenatureofthisfaithwithwhich
hegrewupsurelyshedlightonhislatertheologicalformulationsofthefaith.
Thoughhewouldquicklyenterintoanacademicenvironment,histheological
projectwouldneverbecomesoabstractastoberemovedfromthesimpleand
profoundexperienceofhisCatholicfaithandthebondsofloveinhisfamilythat
mediatedthisexperienceofGodearlyinhislife.
SeminaryFormation
Suchwastheaffectivesensibilityhebroughtwithhimintotheexperienceof
seminarystudies.Inhismemoirs,however,then‐CardinalRatzingerrecallsplainly
hisdissatisfactionwiththearidneo‐scholasticisminsomeaspectsofthisearly
theologicaltraining.Themodernperson,Ratzingercouldsee,longedforauthentic
encounterwiththelivingGod‐anencounterwhichcouldlayaclaimonthewhole
personandnotmerelyuponthementalfacultiesoftheologicalexperts.Herecalls
theversionofThomismbeingpresentedinthoseyearsintheseminarythatmade
himthinkits“crystalclearlogicseemedtometobetooclosedinonitself,too
impersonalandready‐made.”13Consequently,hesoughtout‐anddiscovered‐away
ofdoingtheologythatwouldspeaktothecontemporaryculturalneedsthatwould
drawmodernmanoutofhisanxietyandisolation,intocommunionwithother
believersandwiththeliving,TriuneGodwhois,aboveall,relationalandpersonal.
Toenterintothatvision,hecametosee,engagingthebiblicalnarrativemustbethe
startingpoint.
12Ibid.,131.13Ibid.,44.
13
ANewBiblicalPointofDeparture
Oneofthemostsignificantinfluencesonthemindandheartoftheyoung
seminarianRatzingeratthistimewastheexcitingnewdevelopmentsinbiblical
exegesisandtherenewedprominencegiventoScriptureinthecontextofallthe
otherbranchesoftheologicalstudy.FriedrichMaierwasthe“star”biblicalscholar
attheMunichUniversityFacultyofTheologywhileRatzingerwasastudentthere
from1947to1951.Maierwasasignificantproponentofthe“twosourcetheory”of
thesynopticGospelswhichproposedtheexistenceofanotherQuelle,asource,from
whichMatthewandLukemusthavedrawn,inadditiontoMark,towritetheirown
Gospels.ThishypothesizedalternativesourcefortheGospelscametobeknownas
the“Qsource”.Comingtoagreaterappreciationoftheneedtopayattentiontothe
concretesettingoftheGospelsandthehistoricalsettingsandparticularitieswithin
whichtheywerewritten,RatzingerrecallsthegreatexcitementsurroundingMaier’s
lecturesandhowhetooktothesenewstudieswithgreathungerforlearningthe
newlyemergingmethodsfordoingbiblicalexegesis.Hewouldlatercometoamore
criticalreceptionofacertainmodeofhistoricalexegesisbecausehecouldseehow,
initsattempttobehighlyobjectiveandanalyticalinitspracticeofsituatingthe
gospelsintheirhistoricalcontexts,“itisnotinapositiontoseethefulldepthofthe
figureofChrist.”14Hesoonhadasenseofthetensionbetweenappropriatingthe
gospelashistoricallyembeddedandyetonlyaccessiblebywayofanecclesial
14Ibid.,53.
14
hermeneuticthatallowsthereadertounderstandscriptureforwhatitis:texts
writtenfromtheexperienceoffaithandfortheexperienceoffaith.Nonetheless,
fromthispointoninhisearlyseminarystudy,hewouldsaythatbiblicalexegesis
wouldalwaysremain“thecenterofmytheologicalwork.”15
Inthedevelopmentofanotherimportantaspectofhisthought,Ratzinger
attributesgreatimportancetotheteachingandscholarshipofFriedrichStummer,
anOldTestamentscholar.Stummerdemonstratedtheimportanceofthe
perspectiveoftheinnerunityofthetwobiblicaltestaments.Basedonthis
perspective,Ratzingerrecounts,“MoreandmoreIcametounderstandthattheNew
Testamentisnotadifferentbookofadifferentreligionthat,forsomereasonor
other,hadappropriatedtheHolyScripturesoftheJewsasakindofpreliminary
structure.TheNewTestamentisnothingotherthantheinterpretationoftheLaw,
theProphetsandtheWritingsfoundandcontainedinthestoryofJesus.”16Thetwo
testaments,hecouldsee,arereallyoneexpression,unfoldinginacoherentway,of
theoneWordfromGodspokeninsalvationhistory,culminatinginthepersonof
Christ.Hecametoseethatattemptingtoanalyzeandinterpreteachbookofthe
bibleandeachpartofeachbookasisolated,historicallyconditionedartifactsofa
givenhistoricalandculturalsetting,resultsinlosingsightoftheforestforthetrees.
TheinsightofferedbyStummerregardingtheinnerunityofthebiblicaltestaments
wouldhavesignificantimpactlaterinRatzinger’sunderstandingofthedeep
structureofRevelationitselfandhowitisconveyedinthecourseofsalvation
15Ibid.,52‐53.16Ibid.53
15
history.Hewasbeginningtoformulatenotonlyanhistoricalsensitivitytothe
natureofbiblicalexegesisbutalsotheneedforaliteraryapproachthatcan
appropriateinaunifiedwaytheintegrationofmanytextsthatofferamultifaceted
butneverthelesscoherentvisionandbasisforawholepeople’sexperienceofGod.17
Throughoutallofscripture,herealized,theinterpretivetensionmustbekeptalive
whichsimultaneouslyappreciatestheparticularitiesofanygivenaspectofthe
scripturalnarrativewhilealsokeepingasenseoftheunityoftheonenarrative
whichisexpressiveofoneongoingdialoguebetweentheeternalLogosand
historicalman.Ratzingerwouldlaterdescribethishistoricalandliteraryapproach
tobiblicalinterpretationastheanalogiascripturaethatissuggestedbythebiblical
textsthemselves:“textshavetobereferredbacktotheirhistoricalsettingand
interpretedintheirhistoricalcontext.Then,however,inasecondprocessof
interpretation,theymustalsobeseenfromtheperspectiveofthemovementof
historyasawholeandofChristasthecentralevent.”18Theimpactofthis
recognitionoftheinnerunityofthetestamentsandtheChristocentrismofallof
historyonRatzinger’sthoughtwillbeexploredinfurtherdepthinthenextchapter
onRevelation.
ALiturgicalHorizon
Nexttotheexegetes,Ratzingerrecallshisgreatestinfluencesatthetimewere
thedogmaspecialist,MichaelSchmaus,thefundamentaltheologian,Gottlieb
17ibid.53‐54.TheproperhistoricalandliteraryapproachtoscripturewouldprovetobeongoingareasoffocusfortherestofRatzinger’stheologicalcareer.18JosephRatzinger,God'sWord:Scripture,Tradition,Office.EditedbyPeterHünermann,andThomasSöding(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008),121.
16
Söhngen,apastoraltheologiannamedJosefPascherandacanonist,Klaus
Mörsdorf.19Eachintheirownwaypointedtowarddeepersourcesforthevarious
branchesofthetheologicaldisciplinestheytaught.Ifhesawthatthebiblical
narrativeisthe“soul”offundamentalanddogmatictheology,sotooinmoral
theology,forexample,hegainedtheperspectivethatsoughtto“endthedominance
ofcasuistryandthenaturallawandtorethinkmoralityonthebasisofthefollowing
ofChrist.”20IfScriptureservedastheprimarybasisforthevariousaspectsof
theology,liturgytoobecameprimaryasasourcefortheologicalreflection.Michael
Schmaus,seeingthelimitationsoftheneo‐scholasticismoftheday,offeredan
innovative,systematicportrayalofdoctrine“inthespiritoftheliturgicalmovement
andtherecentreturntoScriptureandtheFathers,whichhaddevelopedintheyears
aftertheFirstWorldWar.”21Ratzingercouldbegintoseemoreandmoreclearlythe
innerrelationshipofallthebranchesoftheologyreflectinginvariouswaysone
coherentvisionofthedialogicalencounterofGodandhumanityintheliving
traditionoftheChurch.
BeingintroducedtotheworkofOdoCaselandRomanoGuardiniwasalso
significantforRatzingerinthefocustheyprovidedontheliturgical“shape”ofthe
Christianfaith.Casel’scontribution,highlightingthefactthattheearlyChristian
liturgicallifedrewespeciallyontherealityofmystery,helpedcontemporary
theologianstore‐examinesacramentaltheologynotsomuchthroughthescientific/
analyticalapproachcharacterizedbyrelianceontheontologyofAristotelianismand
19Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,55.20Ibid.,55.21Ibid.,49
17
Neo‐Scholasticism,butratherthroughthelensofpersonalengagementinworship
thatcouldnotbetamedanddefinedeasilybythemodeofpropositionallogic.22
RatzingernotesthatCasel’semphasisonmysteryhademergedfromtherenewed
interestintheliturgyasasourceforChristiantheology.Theveryexistenceofthis
“mysterytheology,”hesaid,“posedwithnewacutenessthebasicquestion
concerningtherelationshipbetweenrationalityandmystery,thequestion
concerningtheplaceofthePlatonicandthephilosophicalinChristianity,and
indeedabouttheessenceofChristianity.”23This“mystery”canonlybeexperienced
whentheindividual,isolatedpersonletsgooftheprospectofself‐securityand
opensupintothedynamicofconversationwiththesovereignGodwhohas
“spoken”Himselfandcalledforaresponsefromallhumanity.Caselexplainedthat
“modernmanthinkshehasfinallydrivenoutthedarknessoftheMystery”thanksto
theeffortsoftechnicalrationality.Andyet,he“remainswhollycircumscribedinthe
boundsofthematerialworld.Byimaginingheistherulerofthisworld,heisforced
moreandmoretodoitswill.”24Thisnotionthatmanfindsauthenticfreedomonly
inenteringintoandsurrenderingtothedynamicofrelationshipwithGodinthe
contextofworshipwouldbecomethechordstruckagainandagaininthethoughtof
JosephRatzinger.Henotes,forexample,inSpiritoftheLiturgythattherealreason
forGod’scallthroughMosestothepeopleofIsraeltogooutintothedesertisnot
justsothattheycanpassthroughitonthewaytothepromisedland.Rather,they
aretogowherethereisnoothersourceofsecurity,inordertofreelyworshipthe22MostprominentlyinOdoCaselandBurkhardNeunheuser,TheMysteryofChristianWorship,andOtherWritings(Westminster,MD:NewmanPress,1962).23Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,55‐56.24Casel,MysteryofChristianWorship,3.
18
livingGod.WhenGodsays,“Letmypeoplegothattheymayservemeinthe
wilderness”(Ex7:16),Ratzingerletsthiscommandspeakforitself‐thattheessence
ofGod’scalltohispeople,andthereforethefullnessofthefreedomthatGodhasin
mindforthem,isultimatelyrootedintheircapacitytoenterintothisworship,into
thisdialoguewiththelivingGod.25
RomanoGuardini,too,didmuchtoopenupnewhorizonsforRatzingerinhis
theologythatremindedpeopleofthecoreoftheChristianexperienceasliturgical
worship.26ForGuardini,theChurchrealizesthedeepestexpressionofheridentity
onlyinthecontextofcorporateworship.For,“intheliturgy”heexplains,“Godisto
behonoredbythebodyofthefaithful,andthelatterisinitsturntoderive
sanctificationfromthisactofworship.”27Consequently,itisessentialtobe
remindedthatthereisaprimacyofLogosoverEthosintheChristianlife.Thatisto
say,contemplationofDivineTruthintheliturgymustalwaysprecedeanyauthentic
effortstoworkfortheKingdomofGod.Heexplainsthattheliturgyis“primarily
occupiedinformingthefundamentalChristiantemper.Byitmanisinducedto
determinecorrectlyhisessentialrelationtoGod…Asaresultofthisspiritual
disposition,itfollowsthatwhenactionisrequiredofhimhewilldowhatisright.”28
Enteringintothedynamicsoftheliturgywhereinthehumanpersondiscoverswho
hetrulyisinrelationtoGodisessentialinsheddinglightontherestoftheChristian
life.Theseinsightsthatbecamesocentraltotheliturgicalrenewaloftheearly
twentiethcenturywere,ofcourse,basedonthehistoricalretrievalofmoreancient25JosephRatzinger,TheSpiritoftheLiturgy(SanFrancisco,CA:IgnatiusPress,2000),15.26Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,43.27RomanoGuardini,TheSpiritoftheLiturgy(NewYork:CrossroadPub,1998),19.28Ibid.,86.
19
Christiansensibilitiesanditistothese(andtheirinfluenceonRatzinger)thatwe
nowturn.
TheInfluenceofTheFathers
RatzingerembracedtheinsightsofCaselandGuardiniregardingcentralityof
theliturgyallthemoregivenhissimultaneousrealizationofthefruitfulnessof
patristicbiblicalexegesisandtheologicalconclusionsdrawnfromthisapproach.
FromtheFathers,hewasshapedintheconvictionofthenormativityandtheunity
ofScripture.AlltheologicalreflectionmustbeginwithapostureoffaiththatGod
hastakentheinitiativeandhasindeedspokeninhistory.Origen,forinstance,notes
inthefirstlinesofBookOneofOnFirstPrinciplesthatthosewhofindconfidencein
awayoflifethatwillbe“goodandblessed”dosobecauseofthe“wordsofChrist.”
But“bythewordsofChrist,wedonotmeanonlythosewhichformedhisteaching
whenhewasmademananddweltintheflesh,sinceevenbeforethatChristthe
WordofGodwasinMosesandtheProphets.”29AsSacredScriptureisaconveying
ofthesemomentsofGod’sspeech,Ratzinger,alongwithhispatristicteachers,
recognizesitmustbethestartingpointforfurthertheologicalreflectionandassuch
itprovidesthenormativeframeworkforallthatfollows.Thecharacterofthe
scripturalwitness,thoughitisexpressedinavarietyofdifferentgenresandcomes
fromvarioushistoricalandculturalsettings,neverthelessisacoherentandunified
“word.”Itmustbetaken,inthispatristicvision,asawholeandnotasacollectionof
isolatedhistoricaldocuments.Furthermore,fromtheFathersRatzingerlearned
thatthelivingtraditionsincetheageofthescripturalwitnessisalwaysessentialto
29Origen,OnFirstPrinciples,EditedbyG.W.Butterworth,(Gloucester,MA:PeterSmith,1973),1.
20
thepresentunderstandingofthefaith.Howtheecclesialcommunityhas
appropriatedtheWordofGodspokeninthepast,servesalwaysasaclueastohow
toremaininthedialogicalexchangewithGodinthepresent.Thisisespeciallytrue
whenoneconsidersthenatureofChristianworshipthathasbeeninheritedfrom
previousgenerations.Thelexorandiofthelivingtraditionbecomesessentialforthe
currentecclesialcommunity’sgrapplingwithquestionsofthelexcredendi.
Underlyingtherelianceonbiblicalandliturgicalsourcesfortheologyisa
presumptionoftheimportanceofhistoricalexperienceofGod’ssalvationamongthe
peopleofGod.OneofRatzinger’sprofessors,GottliebSöhngenwasespecially
influentialinhelpingtoformthisvision.Inhisownscholarshipheargued,“the
Christmysteryisnokingdomof‘pure’valueslikethekingdomof‘eternaltruths.’”30
Rather,ateveryturnintheChristiantradition,itisclearforSöhngenthattruthis
necessarilycommunicatedbyGodtohumanityinamannerthatishistorical,andnot
asideassomehowdisembodiedfromhistoricalreality.31Thedevelopmentof
Christiandogma,bywayoftheageoftheFathers,comestobeanessentialaspectof
howGod’swordcontinuestobecommunicatedtotheChurchineveryage.
InadditiontoSöhngen,anotherprofessor,AlfredLäpple,directedRatzinger
towardHansUrsvonBalthasar’stranslationofHenrideLubac’sCatholicisme.32De
LubacbecameaguideforRatzingertotheFathers,especiallyAugustine.He
30GottliebSöhngen“DasMysteriumdeslebendigenChristusundderlebendigeGlaube…”inDieEinheitinderTheologie:GesammelteAbhandlungen(München:K.Zink,1952),344‐48.Cf,PatrickW.Carey,AveryCardinalDulles,SJ:AModelTheologian,19182008(NewYork:PaulistPress,2010),168.31Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,55.32HenrideLubac,GlaubenausderLiebe:Catholicisme.TranslatedbyHansUrsvonBalthasar.(Einsiedeln:JohannesVerlag,1970).SeealsoRatzinger’sownintroductiontoalatereditionofthesameworkofdeLubacinHenrideLubac,Catholicism.Christandthecommondestinyofman.TranslatedbyLancelotC.SheppardandElizabethEnglund.(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1988).
21
describeshowdeLubachelpedhimtodiscoverthe“essentiallysocial”natureofthe
Christianfaith.33Hefoundanalternativetothepresentationofthefaithsometimes
narrowlyconceivedasanindividualisticfollowingofmoralisticcodesorprivate
assenttoparticularpropositionaltruths.Inopeningupthehorizonofthe
essentiallycommunalandecclesialnatureoftheChristianfaith,itbecameclearhow
thecelebrationofthesacramentsbythewholeChurchreallyexpressesthefullness
ofChristianlife.Inparticular,herealizedinadeeperwaytheessentiallinkbetween
theEucharistandtheChurch‐howeachone“makes”theother.34Byplacingthe
Eucharistatthecenterofecclesiology,hesimultaneouslyinsists,withAugustine,
thatthesubstanceofecclesiologyisessentiallyChristology.Thisissosincethe
unfoldingofthelifeoftheChurchwhosemembersareincommunionwithone
anotherandwiththetraditionthathasprecededthem,isalwayscenteredon,in
imitationof,andparticipatingin,themysticalbodyofChristhimself.35
TheencounterwithAugustinewouldultimatelyleadtothefocusofRatzinger’s
laterdoctoralworkonthegreatLatinFather’stheologyoftheChurchas
communicatedintheimagesof“people”and“house”ofGod.36Hereafamiliar
themeinRatzinger’stheologywouldbedevelopedinhissenseofthe“collectiveI”of
theChurch.RatzingernotesthatAugustine’suseoftheterm“peopleofGod”often
recalledOldTestamentfoundationswhereinGodgatheredhispeopletogetherfor
themtolistentohiswordspokenthroughAbraham,Mosesandtheprophets.This
33Ratzinger,Milestone:Memoirs,19271977,98.34Ibid.MorewillbesaidonthisinthefollowingchapteronChurchandLiturgy.35EmeryDeGaál,TheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2010),65.36Ratzinger,VolkundHausGottesinAugustinsLehrevonderKirche.
22
notionofthepeopleofGodisrecapitulatedandfulfilledintheNewTestamentwhen
theApostlesgathertogetherasanekklesiaaroundthepersonofChrist.37Inthe
processofthehearingoftheWordofGod,theChurchbecomesatruesubject,able
tospeakback,toenterintodialoguewithGodwhohasspokenfirst.Intheprocess
ofthisexchangeoflisteningandspeaking,theChurchbecomesher“trueself.”
ThoughRatzingerdrewonanancientsourceinAugustineforsuchavision,the
themewouldresonateinatleastsomestrandsofcontemporaryhermeneuticsas
well.Theproposalin“readerresponsetheory,”forexample,thatmeaninginatext
isnotfullyrealizeduntilthereaderappropriatesthatmeaning,andfurther,thatthis
appropriationisamatternotsimplyfortheindividualreader,butforthewhole
“interpretivecommunity”,wouldfindacertainresonance,forinstance,in
Ratzinger’srecognitionthat“bydefinition,[divine]revelationrequiressomeone
whoapprehendsit.”38MoreonthisaspectofRatzinger’sthoughtwillbetakenupin
chapterfour,ontherelationshipoftheWordtotheChurch.Butsufficeittosayfor
nowthatintheinsightofthe“essentiallysocial”natureoftheChurchgatheredfrom
Augustine,Ratzingerfoundyetanotherplaceofcontactwithcontemporarythought
thatwasre‐discoveringsomeoftheseancientanthropologicalandepistemological
insights.WeturnnowtoanelaborationofRatzinger’scontactwithsomeother
strandsofcontemporaryphilosophicalmovementsthatwouldfindresonanceinthe
Christiantheologicaltradition.
37MaximilianHeinrichHeim,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2007),159.38Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,108.
23
PhilosophicalPersonalism
Infirstbeingintroducedtothe“philosophyofdialogue”ofMartinBuber,
Ratzingersayshewasgiven“aspiritualexperiencethatleftanessentialmark”not
unlikehisfirstencounterwithAugustine’sConfessions.39Thoughhedoesnotgoon
toelaboratemuchaboutwhatthisexperiencewaslike,itisevidentinhislater
writingshowmuchBuberhasbeenaninfluence.40Thisnewhorizonofa
“metaphysicsofdialogue”41suggestedbyBuberwouldgiveacontemporary
philosophicalgroundingthatwouldallowRatzingertoappropriatetheChristian
visionfromtheancientbiblicalandpatristicsourceswhileenablinghimto
simultaneouslyengagecontemporarycultureinthesphereofitsownconcerns.
Buberfirstpublishedhislandmarkessay,“IchundDu”in1923.42His
“dialogicalphilosophy”offeredabasisnotonlyforarenewalofethics,politicsand
hermeneutics,butalsoforanunderstandingofauthenticreligiousexperience.
Consciousoftheneedsandconcernsofmodernculture,Buber’s“IchundDu”spoke
tothe“sicknessoftheage”andofferedanantidotetoit.Inthisagebetweenthe
wars,Bubersensed,likemanyofhiscontemporaries,analarmingisolation,anxiety
andalienationinhiscontemporaries.Thewaytohealingthissicknessofalienation,
forBuber,layinhumanity’s“return”tothedialoguewith“theEternalThou”.43
39Ibid.44.40MarkusRutsche,DieRelationalitätGottesBeiMartinBuberUndJosephRatzinger,(Norderstedt:GRINVerlag,2007).41SeeCharlesHartshorne’s“MartinBuber’sMetaphysics”inPaulArthurSchilpp,MauriceS.Friedman,andMartinBuber,ThePhilosophyofMartinBuber,(LaSalle,Ill.:OpenCourt,1967),49‐68.42ForanearlyEnglishtranslation,seeMartinBuber,IandThou(NewYork:Scribner,1958).43TamraWright,“Self,Other,Text,God”inMichaelL.MorganandPeterEliGordon,TheCambridgeCompaniontoModernJewishPhilosophy(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),102‐121.
24
Inthisseminalwork,Buberpointstothepossibilityofarealencounterofthe
humanpersonwithGod‐aproposalcalledintoquestioninthemodern
philosophicalandtheologicallandscape.Onlyinthisencounter,however,wouldthe
humanpersonfindawayoutoftheoppressivenessofthemodernmentalitythat
hadcometoobjectifyallaroundhim.ThiswayofobjectificationBuberdeemedthe
“IandIt”relationality.Buberadmitsthatrelatingtoobjects‐“Its”‐isthewayin
whichwemustlivemuchofourpracticallives,butwhenitcomestointeracting
withtheworldaroundus,withotherpeopleandeveninattemptingtorelatetoGod,
itisimpossibleforustoremainconstantlystandinginthisobjectivistposture,
relatingonlyto“It”.Thisobjectiverelationalityispreciselywhatcreatesasenseof
isolationand“sickness”inthehumansubject,forBuber.Offeringacritiquesimilar
toOdoCasel,Buberexplainsthattohaveourwayofinteractingbeyondourselves
limitedonlytothis“objectifying”modeistohavetheessenceofourtruehuman
naturestifled.Rather,whatisnecessary,isanenteringintothe“mystery”ofthe
encounterthatisestablishedinanopeningupto“theThou.”44Themostauthentic
humanexperience,forBuber,isan“I‐Thou”encounter.Thisisindeedwhatmakes
ushuman‐thecapacityforthatpersonalencounterandthedegreetowhichwe
allowthoseencounterstooccur.Toooften,however,webecomecontenttoremain
intherealmoftalkingabouttheseencountersfromthesafedistancethat“various
conceptual,aesthetic,instrumentalormathematical”mediationsaffordus.45Insofar
aswedonotallowourselvestobedrawnintoandchangedbytheseencounters,we44MartinBuberandRonaldGregorSmith,BetweenManandMan(NewYork:Macmillan,1965),229.Thenatureofthis“mystery”ofthe“I‐Thou”relationisdescribedmorefullyinNathanRotenstreich’sessay“Buber’sDialogicalThought”inSchilppandFriedman,ThePhilosophyofMartinBuber,98.45MorganandGordon,TheCambridgeCompaniontoModernJewishPhilosophy,108.
25
becomeclosedofffromauthentichumanexistence‐andwebecome“sick”and
ultimatelyunfulfilledinourhumanpotential.RejectingtheobjectificationofGod,
then,BuberreintroduceshisreadertoGodasdivinesubjectwithwhomthehuman
personisabletoenterintorealrelationshipandtherebyactualizeauthentichuman
identity.
JosephRatzingerfoundinthis“I‐Thou”paradigmawayoftalkingaboutrelating
toGodthatopenedupnewhorizonsthatcouldspeaktothelongingforrelationship
andoftheovercomingofisolationsocharacteristicofthemodernperson.Ratzinger
wouldconcurwithBuberinhisbeliefthatthecrucialturningpointinthisauthentic
comingtobeofoneoneself,isthatGodmustbe“addressed”,nottobesimply
“asserted”or“expressed.”46TamraWrightdescribesBuber’sstrongcritiqueatthe
endofIandThouofbothmoderntheologyandmanytraditionalreligionsthat,even
ifforverydifferentreasons,areoftendrawnintoanobjectificationofallthat
pertainstotheencounterwithGod.47WhileGodcanbespokenofincertain
circumstancesasan“It”,itisnottruethatGodisan“It”.Makingakindofliturgical
argumentthatresonateswiththebiblicaladmonitionagainstidolatry,Buber
remindshisreader,“God,theeternalPresence,doesnotpermithimselftobeheld.
WoetothemansopossessedthathethinkshepossessesGod!”48Worship,then,
thatactivitywhereinthehumanpersonaddressesthepersonalGodandallowsthe
Godwhoisnotobjectbutsubjecttospeak,isessentialforthehealingofmodern
sicknessofhumanity.46Ibid.,110.47Ibid.Seeespeciallythesectionon“TheEternalThou”,109‐111.48Buber,IandThou(NewYork:Scribner,1958),106.
26
ForRatzinger’spart,itseemsthathehasdrawnespeciallyupontheJewish
philosopher,MartinBuber,tosuggestthevery“shape”oftheChristianfaithitself.
AttheverybeginningofhisPrinciplesofCatholicTheologyforexample,herecalls
HeinrichSchlier’sdistinctionbetweenthefaithbeingproclaimedinnominalterms‐
tryingtodefineorassertwhothepersonofChristis‐andthefaithbeingproclaimed
inverbalterms‐describingwhatGodhasdoneinsalvationhistory.49Byfollowing
the“grammar”ofBuber’sdescriptionoftheGod‐manrelationship,EmerydeGaál
arguesthatforRatzinger,bothChristiantheologyandanthropologyareredefined
preciselybecause“throughahumanbeingGodhasenteredhistoryasaspeaking
subject.”50MartinBuber’sdialogicalphilosophywascertainlyanimpetusin
Ratzinger’sdevelopmentofthis“grammar”oftheChristianmystery.Later,in
reflectingbackonthedevelopmentoftheChurch’steachingonDivineRevelationin
DeiVerbum,atVaticanII,Ratzingerwouldnotethatthereemerged“an
understandingofrevelationthatisseenbasicallyasdialogue”51asopposedto
“tacitlyrestricting‘revelation’toateachingthatoneacquiresfromdifferent
‘sources’‐aviewtypicaloftheageofhistoricismanditsemphasisonthe‘positive’,
whichhere,howeverunconsciouslyappearedinthegarmentofecclesiastical
traditionalism.”52ThedialogicalunderstandingofrevelationtakenupinDei
Verbumwasinfluencedinnosmallpart,accordingtoRatzinger,bythe
49JosephRatzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1987),18.HecitesSchlier’sessay“DieAnfängedeschristologischenCredo”inZurFrühgeshichtederChristologie(Freiburg:Herder,1970),13‐58.50deGaál,TheologyofPopeBenedictXVI,61.51HerbertVorgrimler,ed.,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanIIVol.3,NewYork:HerderandHerder,1967,171.52Ibid.,170.
27
“personalisticthinking”ofMartinBuberthathadhelpedtoshapesomuchof
philosophyandtheologyontheeveoftheCouncil.53Itistothisdialogical
conceptionoftheChristianfaithembracedbyRatzingerthatservedasan
alternativetoothermodesofCatholictheologythatwenowturn.
II.APostConciliarTheologicalAlternative
TheecclesialdividethathasemergedinthewakeoftheSecondVaticanCouncil
hasbeenfrequentlydescribed.Theconflictistypicallyframedinsociologicaland
politicaltermsof“conservatism”and“progressivism.”Thisschema,however,does
noteasilyofferawayofunderstandingthelikesofsomeonelikeJosephRatzinger.
IntheleaduptotheCouncilandinthemidstofit,heiseasilyplacedinthe
“progressive”category,andyethisidentityis,inmorerecentdecades,associated
withconservatism.Again,peoplesearchforpoliticalandsociologicalreasonsfor
sucha“change”inhim.Hewasunsettledbythesocialupheavalsof1968;he
becamemotivatedbyecclesialambitions,etc.54Thesemustbethereasons,sothe
conventionalwisdomgoes,forhis“reversal”ofthinking.However,ifthesocialand
politicalhermeneuticcanbesuspendedforamomentandthetheological
perspectiveallowedtocometothefore,thedevelopmentofRatzinger’sthought
becomesmoreintelligible.
DavidTracyhasnotedtwobasicgroupsoftheologianswhocontributedso
significantlytotheformulationofthedocumentsofVaticanIIandtheir
53Ibid.54CliffordW.Mills,PopeBenedictXVI,(NewYork:ChelseaHouse,2007);JohnL.Allen,CardinalRatzinger:TheVatican'sEnforceroftheFaith(NewYork:Continuum,2000),98;MichaelCollins,PopeBenedictXVI:SuccessortoPeter(Blackrock,Co.Dublin:ColumbaPress,2005),98.
28
communicationandappropriationsincethen.55Onedistinctivegroupof
theologiansincludingthelikesofRahner,Schillebeeckx,Chenu,etc.,hadhadastheir
projectbeforetheCouncil,thetranslatingofThomasAquinasintoamodernidiom.
ThesetheologianssawthewayforwardaftertheCouncilasbeingcharacterizedby
ever‐greatercooperationwiththedevelopmentsandpromisesofmodernculture.
Theothergroup,thosewhohadastheirprojectpriortotheCouncil,theretrievalof
biblicalandpatristicsourcesfortheology,includedthelikesofdeLubac,Ratzinger,
Daniélou,Congar,etc.Forthese,translationoftheGospelintotheidiomofthe
modernworld,thoughultimatelyessential,wasnottheprimarytasktheysaw
beforethem.Rather,deepeningtheappropriationoftheoriginalsourcesfor
theologytookprimacyintheirunderstandingoftheirproject.Onlyuponthis
deepeningofunderstanding,couldthecontentofthetraditionbearticulated
fruitfullyinthemodernworld.56
WithregardtothefirstgroupofThomists,TraceyRowlandhashelpfully
describedthedominanceoftwodifferentkindsofThomismsintheCatholic
landscapeintheearlytwentiethcentury.Oneformofneo‐Thomismwasgivengreat
encouragementandlegitimacybyPopeLeoXIII’sAeterniPatrisin1879inwhichhe
urgedCatholictheologicalrelianceonthe“perennialphilosophy”ofThomas.These
“LeonineThomists”whoattemptedtocontinuetheprojectofteachingthe
substanceofthefaithinanAristotelianframework,wereconfidentinthescholastic
methodthatcouldgiveevenamodernaudienceaclearconceptionofthe55DavidTracy,“TheUneasyAllianceReconceived:CatholicTheologicalMethod,ModernityandPostmodernity,”TheologicalStudies50(1989):552‐3.56BenedictXVI,“AProperHermeneuticfortheSecondVaticanCouncil”inLambandLevering,VaticanII:RenewalwithinTradition,ix‐xvi.
29
metaphysicalfoundationsoftheCatholicworld‐view.ThoughRatzingerwouldfind
nothingobjectionableinthisapproachperse,hefounditlacking.Rowland
explains:
“TheThomisttraditionwastreatedasanarchitecturalmodelwhichhadtobetakenapartpiecebypiecewiththesmallestconceptualcomponentssubjectedtorigorousanalysis.ItwaspreciselythepresentationofthefaithinthismannerthatledRatzinger,vonBalthasarandothersoftheirgenerationtocomplainthattheyfoundThomismdryandunabletoconveyasenseofthegloryofRevelation.Itwasamuchcontractedpresentationofthekerygma.”57
Ontheotherhand,therewastheemergenceofthe“TranscendentalThomists”later
inthetwentiethcentury.Theyprovidedanalternativetotheoftenstaidand
formulaicversionsofneo‐scholasticismthatRatzingerandsomanyothersfoundto
beinadequateandunsatisfyingasameanstocommunicatingandexploringthe
Christianmysteries.ThisnewtranscendentalThomismwasthoroughlymodernin
itsplacementofthehumanknoweratthecenterofthetheologicalproject.For
TranscendentalThomism,byandlargethestartingpointisengagementwiththe
epistemologyofImmanuelKant.Flowingfromthisengagement,KarlRahner
concludesthattheexistentialrealityofthehumanpersonisalwaysasupernatural
one‐thatthereisatheologicalaprioricharactertoallhumanknowing.Inseeking
torespondtoKant’scritiqueofreligion,butevenmorefundamentally,thehuman
capacitytoknowthingsinthemselves,theTranscendentalThomistsattemptedto
57TraceyRowland,Ratzinger'sFaith:TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),19.
30
useaphilosophicalframeworkbeginningwithanthropologicalissuesasthebasisof
anewmodeofdoingfundamentalanddogmatictheology.58
Inthepre‐conciliarlandscape,Tracyalsopointstoanalternativetothese
variousThomisms,whohadbeenfocusedonretrievalofbiblicalandpatristic
sources.VerysoonaftertheCouncil,thesecametoseethelimitationsinothermore
Thomisticapproachesofwhattheysawasaccommodationtomodernity’s
“anthropologicalturn”.Whattookprimacyinsteadwastheever‐renewing
possibilityintheologyofreturningadfontestotheDivineinitiativeofRevelation
andthehistorical‐symbolicstructureofmeaning.59Whatwasrequiredforfruitful
engagementwiththemodernworld,forthisgroup,ofwhichRatzingerwasapart,
wasconfidenceinthepowerofthekerygmatotransformheartsandultimately
wholecultures.ThiscommitmentamongsomeCatholictheologiansinthelatter
halfofthetwentiethcenturytoreturntotheproclamationoftheWordwasno
doubtinfluencedbytheBarthianneo‐orthodoxrevolutionthatcounteredtheapex
ofliberalProtestantismshapedbySchleiermacherandHarnack.60Ratherthan
primarilyadaptingtothedemandsoftherapidlydevelopingcontemporaryculture,
thatistosay,ratherthanlettingculture“havethefirstword”,thisalternativeschool
oftheologianscalledforrenewedconfidenceinthepoweroftheproclamationofthe
58TraceyRowland,CultureandtheThomistTradition:AfterVaticanII(NewYork:Routledge,2003),1‐8.59DavidTracy,“TheUneasyAllianceReconceived:CatholicTheologicalMethod,ModernityandPostmodernity,”552.60SeeGrahamWard’sessay,“Barth,ModernityandPost‐Modernity”inJ.B.Webster,TheCambridgeCompaniontoKarlBarth(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000),274‐295.RatzingerwouldlaternotethedebttheCouncilhadtothetheologyofBarthwhichhadforcedapositioningoftheproclamationoftheWordatthecenterofChristianlife.SeeVorgimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol.3,170.
31
WordofGodtotransformcontemporaryculture‐tolettheeternalLogosbespoken
firstinthecourseofordinarytheologicalreflection.JosephRatzingerhas
consistentlyembracedthisapproach.
RowlandarguesthatRatzingercanbeseenas‘modernist’tosomeneo‐
Thomistsforfailingtokeepupthetraditionalresistancetomodernityontheterms
setbyLeoXIII.HecanalsobeseenasreactionarybytheTranscendentalThomists
fornottakingashisprioritytheansweringoftheepistemologicalcritiqueofKant
andthewholeofmodernity.Indeed,Rowlandseesacuriousbondbetween
RatzingerandthepostmodernNietzcheansuspicionofreasonasconceivedinthe
modernistmentality.Reasonalone,asRatzingerhasoftenputit,hasa“waxnose”
andunlessitisseeninlightofitsinherentcomplementaritywiththeotherfaculties
ofthehumanperson,iteasilywithersandismanipulatedintovariousdistortions.
Theapplicationofdryabstractionintheologicalmethodisunabletodojusticeto
themysteryofwhatGodhasdoneinthecourseofthedramaofsalvation,for
Ratzinger.Hehasconsistentlyanddeliberatelyrejectedrationalistabstractionthat
wouldconceiveofthekindofGodthat“needsnomother.”61
Ratzinger,followingHansUrsvonBalthasar,placesthemysteryofthedrama
ofsalvationatthecenterofthetheologicalproject.62TheChristianistheonecalled
intothetensionoflivingwithinthisdramaticnarrativeofthesalvificdialogueofGod
andhumanity.TousethecategoryofMartinBuber,itisawayof“in‐betweenness”‐61Rowland,Ratzinger’sFaith,3.CitinganinterviewwithRatzinger’sseminaryprefect,AlfredLäpplesoonaftertheelectionofRatzingertothepapacyconductedbyGianniValenteandPierlucaAzzardoin30Days1(2006),60.62SeeRatzinger’sessay,“Communio:AProgram”inCommunio;InternationalCatholicReview(Fall1992).HerehedescribesBalthasar’suseofthedramaoftheChristiannarrativeasthehermeneuticlensforunderstandingtheSecondVaticanCouncil’sunderstandingofthetaskoftheology.
32
awayoftensionbetweenGodwhospeakstotheWorldandtheWorldwhoisable
to,butperhapsafraidof,listening.63The“deepstructure”ofrealityisbasednot
primarilyontheindividual’sknowingandunderstandingrealityaccordingtothis
modeofknowing.Rather,byenteringintorelationshipwithbothGodandothers,
theconditionsaresetfortheemergenceofthepossibilityofknowingatthedeepest
level.Indeed,thisknowingthatisconsistentwithfaithtakesplacemostperfectlyin
thelifeoftheChurchandoccursonlybylettingperceptionofthewholeofrealitybe
shapedbythevisionfromwithinthesesetsofrelationships.Rowlandcitesin
CharlesTaylorasimilarunderstandingoftheencounteroftheChurchand
modernity:“Itisnotthatwehavesloughedoffawholelotofunjustifiedbeliefs
leavinganimplicitself‐understandingthathadalwaysbeenthere,tooperateatlast
untrammeled.Rather,oneconstellationofimplicitunderstandingsofourrelation
toGod,thecosmos,otherhumans,andtime,wasreplacedbyanotherina
multifacetedmutation”inthecourseoftheemergenceofsecularizedmodern
culture.64ForRatzinger,inordertoaddressthischallengeofthecultureof
modernity,whatisrequiredaboveallis“receiving”thetruthoftherealityofthe
RevelationfromGod,therebygivingimpetusforaChristianculturetorevivify
accordingtowhathasbeenreceivedinthecommunityoftheChurch.AsRatzinger
wouldputitina1992essay,“Christianityisnotspeculation;itisnotaconstruction
oftheintellect.Christianityisnot‘our’work,itisaRevelation,amessagethathas
63MauriceS.Friedman,MartinBuber:TheLifeofDialogue(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1976),3‐10.64Rowland,Ratzinger'sFaith,145‐6.Cf.,CharlesTaylor’s“TwoTheoriesofModernity”HastingsCenterReport,March‐April1995,24‐27.
33
beengivenus,andwehavenorighttoreconstructitaswewish.”65ThisRevelation
thatisgivenconstructsthewholeofrealityfortheChristian.RelianceonRevelation
anditshistorical‐symbolicnature,asopposedtotheabstractcharacterofother
modesofcontemporarytheology,hasbeenanessentialcharacteristicofRatzinger’s
mannerofdoingtheology.Thisapproach,Isuggest,mightbeconsideredas
uniquely“dialogical.”Hehasproceededinthis“historical‐symbolic”mannerof
doingtheologywhichismostgiventoanarrativewayofdoingtheologythathasas
itscentralmotifthedialoguebetweenGodandhumanity.Iwouldarguethathe
choosesthismodeofdoingtheologynotonlybecauseheseesitasbeingtruetothe
coreofthefaiththathasbeengiven,butalsobecauseheseesthatthisispastorally
themosteffectivewayofcommunicatingthesavingpoweroftheWordinhistory.
III.Conclusion:ADialogicalVisionFormed
Theprocessoftheformationofthe“dialogicalstructure”oftheyoungJoseph
Ratzinger’sthoughtwasmultifaceted.Thankstothecontributionofmanyand
varyinginfluences,acoherentvisionbegantoemerge.Theformationofhisthought
wasinitself,ofcourse,thefruitofongoingdialogue‐withsourcesbothancientand
new.Ashematured,hecultivatedwhatmightbetermeda“personalisttheology”,
orperhapsbetter,a“dialogicaltheology”shapedultimatelybybiblicalandpatristic
frameworksbutwhichwouldalsobyreaffirmedbymorecontemporary
philosophicalsourcessuchasthatofMartinBuber.Thesourceofthispersonalist
theologyistheeternalLogoswhoisspeaking,whoisbeingspoken,whoisbeing
65JosephRatzinger,CoWorkersoftheTruth:MeditationsforEveryDayoftheYear.EditedbyIreneGrassl(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1992),265.
34
heard.AttheheartoftheHolyTrinityisthisLogosanditisthroughthisLogosthat
allcreationcomesabout.Therefore,inRatzinger’stheology,whetheritpertainsto
theinnerlifeoftheTrinity,Christology,ortheologicalanthropology,thereisalways
presentwhatmightbecalledadialogicalprincipleinwhichtheEternalWordis
continuallybeingspokeninhistory‐inhumanwords.ThisrelianceontheWord,
whichisbydefinitionbothintelligibleandcommunicable,setsupthebasisfora
theologythatisinherentlyrelational.Ratzinger’sdialogicalmodeofdoingtheology,
then,serveshispreferenceforthe“communio”shapeoftheology.66Forexample,
whenhereflectsontheintrinsiclinkbetweenChristologyandtheEucharistic
liturgyanditsimportforecclesiology,henotes,“TheEucharistisneveranevent
involvingjusttwo,adialoguebetweenChristandme.EucharisticCommunionis
aimedatacompletereshapingofmyownlife.Itbreaksupman’sentireselfand
createsanew‘we.’CommunicationwithChristisnecessarilyalsoacommunication
withallwhobelongtohim:therein,Imyselfbecomepartofthenewbreadthatheis
creatingbytheresubstantiationofthewholeofearthlyreality.”67Attheheartof
howheunderstandsalltheseaspectsoftheology,then‐Christology,liturgy,
ecclesiology,creation,eschatology,etc.‐iscommunication‐dialogue.
Ratzinger’sdialogicalstructureoftheologicalreflectionfollowsaconsistent
pattern:Scripture,asitisthe“souloftheology”,mustbeitsstartingpoint,
methodologicallyspeaking.ThenatureofScriptureasawholeisthenarrativeof
theunfoldingrelationshipbetweenGodandhumanity.Anarrativeisalwayssetin66JosephRatzinger,“Communio:AProgram”Communio:InternationalCatholicReview19,no.3(1992):436‐49.67JosephRatzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith:TheChurchasCommunion(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005),78.
35
history;itisnevermerelyabstractreflection.Itisinhistory,then,thatGodspeaks
tohumanity,revealsHimselfultimatelyasWord‐made‐fleshintheprotagonistof
theentirenarrative:JesusofNazareth.Thisistheculminationofthenarrativein
whichbothGodandhumanityarerediscoveredinanewway.Indeed,intheperson
ofJesusappearstheperfectdialogueitselfbetweenGodandhumanity.Throughour
experienceofChrist,wecometoknow“Godwhoisnotonlylogosbutalsodia
logos.”68
AMoreHistorical,SpiritualandPastoralSystematicTheology
CharacteristicofRatzinger’sthoughtistore‐conceiveofthephilosophical
underpinningsofCatholictheologybywayofarenewedattentiontothehistoricity
oftheChristianmystery.Hisformation,asIhaveindicated,wasinfluencedvery
muchbythenewattentionpaidtohistoricalconsciousnessinauthenticbiblical
exegesis.Ratzinger’sresponsetotheneedforatheologymore“historically
conscious”,however,hasnotsimplybeenacapitulationtoarecentacademictrend.
Rather,ithasmadepossibleamodeofdoingtheologythatismoreaccessible
spirituallyandpastorally,givenitsdialogicalandnarrativestyle.Thehistoricaland
dialogicalmodeofdoingtheologyisalsoarguablymorecapableofplumbingthe
depthsoftheessentialtruthoftheChristianvisionthathasatitscenterthemystery
ofthe“tearingoftheveil”thathadpreviouslyseparatedheavenandearthandthat
makespossiblenow,thisintimatedialogueandcommunionbetweenGodand
humanity.DialogueandencounterwiththeLogos‐made‐loveinhistoryisatthe
heartofRatzinger’stheologicalandpastoralvision.ThisiswhatmakesRatzinger’s
68JosephRatzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004),183.
36
“spiritualChristology”possible,since“behind”Christisintelligibility,
communicabilityofGodandultimately,loveforthebelovedevenasthatloveis
expressedinCreationwhich,whenbeheldbyitscreatorwasdeclaredtobe“very
good”(Gen1:31).69
LogosManifestedasLove
AconsistentconcernsinceRatzinger’sseminaryanddoctoralstudiesisthe
articulationofhowitisthatGodspeaksacrossthechasmthatseparatesheavenand
earth.AtheologybasedontheLogos,communicatedindialogueofwordand
response,iscentraltohiswayofdealingwiththisquestion.WiththeLogosasthe
keytohisapproach,Ratzinger’stheologyisreasonable,butnotabstract.Rather,it
isreasonableinamannerthatbecomespersonallyattractivewhencommunicated
inthecontextofthebiblicalnarrativeastheLogosbecomesloveinJesusChrist.70It
isforthisreasonthatRatzingerhasfromthebeginningseenloveasthe“keyto
Christianity.”Whenhewasaskedinaninterviewaboutthesignificanceofthe
commonthemefromhisfirstpublicationasanacademictohisfirstencyclicalas
pope,bothofwhichcenteredonlove,hereplied,“Twothemeshavealways
accompaniedmeinmylife,then:ontheonehand,thethemeofChrist,astheliving,
presentGod,theonewholovesusandhealsusthroughsuffering,and,ontheother
hand,thethemeoflove…becauseIknewthatloveisthekeytoChristianity,thatlove
69JosephRatzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1986),13‐15.70ThisisnotonlytrueofRatzinger’sownpersonalapproachtotheology,butithasalsoinfluencedthebroadertheologicalcommunityinthelifeofthewholeChurch.FergusKerrhasobservedthatasRatzingerbecamethefirst“non‐Thomistic”PrefectoftheCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith,withhimanewerabeganthatisopentonewmodesofdoingtheologywithgreaterfocusonScriptureandliturgyasprimarysourcesfortheology.Kerr,TwentiethCenturyCatholicTheologians:FromNeoscholasticismtoNuptialMysticism,(Malden,MA:BlackwellPub,2007),187.
37
istheanglefromwhichithastobeapproached.”71Hehasmadethis“angle”hisown
throughouthistheologicalandpastoralcareer.
Inthischapter,IhaveattemptedtoestablishthecentralityoftheLogosin
JosephRatzinger’sthought.BasedupontheconsistentuseoftheLogosinhis
theology,Ihavesuggestedadialogicalprincipleatworkinthewholeofhistheology
thatservesasakindofunifyingprincipleforalloftheologyasheundertakesit.I
haveproposedafewearlyinfluencesinhisphilosophicalandtheologicalformation
thathelpedtoprovideabasisforsuchadialogicalstructureinthewholeofhis
thought.Inthenextchapters,Iwilltrytodemonstratehowthisdialogicalprinciple
isatworkinparticularareasoftheology,beginningwithhistheologyofRevelation
andthenmovingonfromthatbasistohisChristology,ecclesiologyandfinallyhis
theologyofcreationandeschatology.
71BenedictXVI,LightoftheWorld,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2010),102.
38
Chapter2
“RevelationSeenBasicallyasDialogue”
“InmanyandvariouswaysGodspokeofoldtoourfathersbytheprophets;butintheselastdayshehasspokentousbyaSon,whomheappointedtheheirofallthings,throughwhomalsohecreatedtheworld.HereflectsthegloryofGodandbearstheverystampofhisnature,upholdingtheuniversebyhiswordofpower.”(Heb1:1‐3)
Because Joseph Ratzinger has never written a comprehensive “systematic
theology”ofhisown,itisachallengetoknowwhatareaoftheologytobeginwithin
attemptinganexpositionofthecoherenceofhisthought.Thedifficultyoffindinga
precisestartingpointisindicativeofthenatureofRatzinger’stheology.Hismodus
operandi isalwaystoshowthesyntheticandholisticnatureoftheChristianvision
andthereforeofthewholeofthetheologicalenterprise.Tospeakofsacraments,for
example, it is necessary always to have in mind their scriptural basis and the
theological as well as philosophical grounding that make them efficacious. To
engageinaquestionofmoraltheology,onemustneverdosooutsidethescopeof
ecclesiologicalandTrinitariantheologiesofcommunion,etc.Still,itisnecessaryto
startsomewhereintheefforttoexplicatethecoherenceofhisthoughtandsoI’ve
chosen to begin with his theology of Revelation. I do so in order to establish
immediatelythecontentionofthethesisthatwhatprovidescoherenceforthewhole
of Ratzinger’s thought is the organizing principle of the communicability of the
WordofGod.
39
Ratzinger’stheologyofRevelationisLogo‐centric,historicalincharacterand
thereforenarrativeandinstylesuchthatthedynamicitmostclearlyfollowsisthat
ofanunfoldingoftheChristianmystery.Assuch,itiscanrightlybecharacterizedas
dialogical.AshemakesconsistentuseoftheappealtotheLogosastheprincipleof
coherenceforhisexplanationofhowGodrevealsGodselftohumanity,heis
simultaneouslyinsistentonthehistoricalaspectofrevelation.AsGodrevealshis
Wordinhumanwords,Hedoessoalwaysinconcretehistoricalsettingsand
circumstances.RatzingerlearnsfromBonaventurethat“wisdomisunthinkableand
unintelligiblewithoutreferencetothehistoricalsituationinwhichithasitsplace.”72
Onlyfromthishistorical“place”cantheeventoftheencounterwiththeLogos
unfoldwhichhasthepotentialtodrawhumanity“upintothetrinitariandynamic:
TheSonleadstotheFatherintheHolySpirit.It[theChristianmystery]isabout
God,andonlyinthisdowetreatthesubjectofmancorrectly.”73Beginningwiththe
divineactiooftheLogosbeingspokenfromaboveandthenseeinghowthatLogosis
spoken“below”inhistory‐onlythenisitpossibletounderstandthecoreofthe
ChristianmysteryasoneofdialoguebetweenGodandman.Inthisvision,
revelationisnotproperlyunderstoodasamonologuefromGodcontaining
informationthatGodchoosestorevealabouthimselfandtheworld,butrathera
dialoguebetweentwoessentialparties,theEternal“I”speakingtothehistorical
72JosephRatzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure(Chicago:FranciscanHeraldPress,1989),6.73MaximilianHeinrichHeim,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology:FundamentalsofEcclesiologywithReferencetoLumenGentium(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2007),2.ThispassageistakenfromRatzinger’sForewordtothisstudyofhisownecclesiologybyHeim.HeisaffirmingHeim’ssenseoftheChristocentricandtheo‐logicalstructureoftheCouncil’steachingaboutRevelationandthelifeoftheChurch.
40
“Thou”ofhumanityandthehistorical“I”ofhumanityrespondingtotheEternal
“Thou”.WhilethereisalwaysmoretotheEternalLogosthanthatwhichgets
expressedinhistory,thecontentofthisdialogueisthesubstanceofrevelationitself.
In the course of this chapter, I hope to show first how Ratzinger’s study of
Bonaventure’stheologyofhistoryhelpedtofundamentallyshapehisthoughtonthe
natureofrevelation.Secondly,Iwillexaminehisattempttoarticulatethenatureof
therelationshipofScriptureandtraditiontorevelationinanessaypublishedinthe
midstoftheCouncil. NextIwillhighlighttherelationshipofRatzinger’sapproach
to the question of Revelation and some of the developments fromVatican I’sDei
Filius to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and then how the recent apostolic exhortation
VerbumDominielaboratesuponthedialogicalstructureofrevelationdevelopedin
Vatican II. Finally, Iwill turn to Ratzinger’s treatment of the authentic nature of
exegesis and theologyasecclesialpractices. I hope to showhowhe sees themas
waysofparticipating in thedynamicofrevelation insofaras theyconsist firstand
foremostinalisteningtotheWordinparticularhistoricalsettingsinorderthatthe
wholeChurchmightbeabletobetterenterintothedialogicaleventoftheunfolding
ofrevelation.
I.FoundationsinBonaventure’sTheologyofHistory
AfterhisdissertationonAugustine’secclesiology,Ratzingerturnedto
Bonaventure’stheologyofhistoryforthetopicofhisHabilitationsschrift.He
undertookthisprojectin1953,hesays,becausethequestionofsalvationhistory
wasre‐shapingtheCatholictheologyofrevelation“whichneoscholasticismhad
41
kepttooconfinedtotheintellectualrealm.”74Herecallsinthesettingofthe
emerging‘historicalconsciousness’withinCatholictheologicalcircles,“Revelation
nowappearedtonolongerbeacommunicationoftruthstotheintellectbutasa
historicalactionofGodinwhichtruthbecomesgraduallyunveiled.”75Thoughthe
insistenceonhistoricalconsciousnessbeingappliedtobiblicalexegesisand
dogmatictheologywasunsettlingsomanyinCatholiccircles,Ratzingertookitasan
opportunitytoexaminethetraditioninlightofthisnewquestion.Hedidsoby
reachingbackintotheresourcesofthattraditioninthethoughtofSt.Bonaventure
to“discoverwhether…therewasanythingcorrespondingtotheconceptof
salvationhistory,andwhetherthismotif‐ifitshouldexist‐hadanyrelationship
withtheideaofrevelation.”76Thefruitofthisstudywastodiscoverexactlysucha
correspondenceandtobegintoconceiveofacontemporarytheologyofrevelation
inlightofthenew‘historicalconsciousness.’
Centraltothisnewwayofconceivingofrevelationwasthatitisproperly
understoodasessentiallyadialoguethatunfoldsinhistorybetweenGodand
humanity.ItisnotmerelyamonologuefromGodconsistingoftruths
communicatedintheabstract.Indeed,forRatzinger,thereisno“revelation”atall
withoutthehistoricallyembeddedhumansubjectappropriatingthatwhichisbeing
revealedbyGod.WhereasithadbeencommoninCatholictheologyintheearlypart
ofthetwentiethcenturytothinkofrevelationprimarilyastheobjectivedatagiven
byGodtohumanity,forBonaventure,revelationisprimarilythemorefoundational
74JosephRatzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998),104.75Ibid.76Ibid.
42
actbywhichGodrevealswhathadpreviouslybeenhidden;itisnotthe“objectified
resultofthisact.”77Inorderforthis“unveiling”toproperlybesaidtohave
happened,thehumansubjectmustreceivewhathasbeengiven.78Heexplains:
Here,‘revelation’isalwaysaconceptdenotinganact.ThewordreferstotheactinwhichGodshowshimself,nottheobjectifiedresultofthisact.Andbecausethisisso,thereceivingsubjectisalsoalwayspartoftheconceptof‘revelation’.Wherethereisnoonetoperceive‘revelation’,norevelationhasoccurred,becausenoveilhasbeenremoved.Bydefinition,revelationrequiresasomeonewhoapprehendsit.79Ratzingernotesthatinmodernusageoftheterm,“Revelation”isoften
simplyequatedwithSacredScripture.Thiswouldhavebeenentirelyforeigninthe
HighMiddleAges,hesays.WhilehestartswithScripture,andseesallofhuman
historythroughthelensofthenarrativeofScripture,Ratzingerarguesthat
Bonaventureconceivedofrevelationinamuchmoreexpansivewaygiventhe
associationofrevelatiowithactio.80AsheinterpretsBonaventure’ssometimes
convolutedschemasregardingrevelationandhistory,Ratzingerdrawsoutsome
basicprinciplesmoreaccessibletothecontemporaryreader.Forone,thereis
alwaysmoretorevelationthanthe“letter”thatisaccessibletothehumanperson.
HenotesastrikingsimilaritybetweenScriptureandCreationinthisregard.Both
presenta“literal”expressionofreality,butthechallengeforthehumansubjectis
77Ibid.,108.78Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,58.79Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,108.80Ibid.
43
alwaystoseebehindthisimmediatepresentationofrealitytograspthemore
transcendenttruthofthings.81
Inthisregard,Bonaventuresuggeststhatthefutureis“revealed”or
accessibleonsomeleveltothoseinthepresent,ifhistoryisproperlyunderstoodin
thelightofScripture.BywayofScripture,ifunderstood“intheSpirit,”itispossible
toapprehendthesubstanceofthefuturethatliesahead.Constantattentivenessin
thepresent,inthelightofthescripturalwitness,isalsoessentialtothiskindof
historicaldiscernment,asonemightcallit.82Thisattentivenessinthepresent
involvesaconsistentstruggletodiscoverwhatBonaventurecallsthe“mystical
meaning”ofScripturethatisunveiledfromitshiddenstateintheprocessof
revelatio.ForthelivingChurch,astheWordofGodexpressedinScriptureis
proclaimedandappropriatedwithinthecommunity,itbecomescleartothose
guidedbytheHolySpirit,thatnoimmediateinterpretationofthetextsofScripture
isabletoexhausttheirmeaning.TheSpiritwhotranscendshistoryistheOneby
whomwhatishidden‘behind’Scripture,isrevealed.Inthismodel,itistheSpirit
whomakestheWordintelligibleforthefaithfullivingintheChurchgroundedin
history.83Ultimately,forBonaventure,thatwhichis“unveiled”intheprocessof
revelatioisdivinerealityitself.Thisdivinereality‐God’sverySelf‐isencounteredin
themysticalascentofman,madepossiblebythegraceofGod.84Thecontentor
substanceofthisrevelatioofdivineessenceisnotan“exclusiveI‐Thourelationship,
81Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,84.82Ibid.,83‐4.83Ibid.,85.84Ibid.,58‐59.
44
ratheritstandsinagreatcosmic‐hierarchicalcontext”.85AsRatzingerinterprets
Bonaventure,then,theunderstandingofGodthatcomesinrevelationisnotthat
whichisapprehendedinisolationbyonethinkerbutratherisadiscoverythatis
made,inunionwiththecommunityofthewholeChurchoverthecourseofsalvation
history.Consequently,whatcomestobeknownbythehumanpersonintheprocess
ofrevelatioisnotsomekindof“clearanddistinct”ideaaboutGod,butrather,only
thekindofknowledgethatcomesfrompersonalencounterwithGodinhistory.This
encounterdoesnottakeplaceinprivatebetweentheindividualandGod,butinthe
contextofawholecomplexofrelationswhichcomprisetheChurchinthepresent
thatisalwaysconnectedtoherpast.
Controversy:Ratzinger’sDialogicalStructureofRevelation
Ratzinger’s“dynamic”or“dialogical”interpretationofBonaventure’stheologyof
historycreatedproblemsforhiminthecourseofthesubmissionofhis
Habilitationsschrift.Theinsistenceontheroleofhumanreceptionintheactof
revelationfromGodsmackedofamodernisttendencythatoneofhisreaders,
MichaelSchmaus,intendedtoguardagainst.ThiscausedconcernforSchmaus,who
concludedthatRatzingerwasopeningthedoortowhatcouldbeunderstoodasthe
“subjectivization”ofrevelationandthesimultaneousdismissingoftheobjectiveand
eternaltruthofrevelation.86Forthisreason,SchmausinitiallyrejectedRatzinger’s
workasunacceptableandonlylaterwouldacceptitonceRatzingerdeletedthis
85Ibid.,72.86FergusKerr,TwentiethCenturyCatholicTheologians:FromNeoscholasticismtoNuptialMysticism(Malden,MA:BlackwellPub,2007),185.
45
allegedly“subjectivist”aspectofhisanalysis.87Thiswasnotaminoreditbut
consistedineliminatingoverhalfofhisoriginalthesis.Helaterexpandedonthe
secondhalfoftheoriginalthesisinordertomakeitacceptabletoSchmaus.The
traumaofthisexperience,nodoubt,hadawayofleavingitsmarkevenmore
indeliblyontheyoungtheologianandwould,consequently,sharpenhis
attentivenesstothisaspectofhisunderstandingoftheChristianvisionasinherently
dialogical.88
DifferentLevelsofMeaninginScripture
BybeingconvincedoftheneedtoalwaysbeginhistheologywithScripture,
Ratzinger’smethodologyisnevergivenovertosheerspeculation.Thereis,forhim,
alwaysthenarrativeofsalvationhistorytoberespondedtoindoingtheology.From
thisvantagepoint,revelationitselfisunderstoodintheseterms.Ratzingerexplains
thatBonaventure’snotionofrevelationinvolvesGod’scommunicationinthe
contextofhistoricalparticulars.Bonaventureisnotconcerned,asmodern
theologiansarewiththenatureoftheonerevelation,butratherinseekingpatterns
amongthemanyinstancesofrevelationinhistory.Inthissensethen,Ratzinger
says,“WecouldsaythatBonaventuredoesnottreatof‘revelation’butof
‘revelations.’”89Thesemanyrevelations,nonetheless,makeupacoherentnarrative
filledwitheventsthatincludeadisclosureofmeaning.Attheheartofthiscoherent
narrativeistheprinciplethatGodprovidesrevelationsasacts.Ratzingerinterprets
87Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,108.88ThefulltextofRatzinger’soriginalthesiswasonlyrecentlypublished.SeeBenedict,GesammelteSchriften.EditedbyGerhardLudwigMüller(FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder,2008),v.89Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,57.
46
Bonaventure’sunderstandingofrevelationasbeingtheactofrevealingbyGod,not
simplythecontentofwhatisultimatelyrevealed.Revelation,thereforeisnota
staticbodyofdataorknowledgebutratheralwayscharacterizedbythedynamicof
anunfoldingeventthatinturngivesitanarrativetextureratherthana
propositionalone.Ifthisistrue,thenRevelation,strictlyspeaking,suggeststhat
whatisbehindScriptureisalwaysmorethanthe“letter”ofScriptureitself.90
Consequently,heexplainsthatforBonaventure,theunderstandingofScripture
wasitselfa“gradual,historical,progressivedevelopment…whichwasinnoway
closed.”91AccordingtothisbasicgraspofthemultivalenceofScripture,
Bonaventureproposesthreewaysofderivingitsmeaning.Thefirstisthespiritualis
intelligentia,orspiritualunderstanding,whichisidenticaltothetraditionalmanner
ofrecognizingliteral,allegorical,tropologicalandanagogicalmeaningstoanygiven
portionofScripture.92Inanygiventext,meaningcanbederivedthatisdeeperthan
theliteralsensetoallowthereadertounderstandhowcertainobjects,characters,
events,etc.,inthisorthatpassagemightberepresentativeofothermorespiritual
realities,howthoserealitiesmightspeaktotheimportanceofmoralconversionin
thereaderandfinallyhowtheserealitiesareinstructiveabouteschatologyand
divinetruthitself.ButBonaventureisnotcontentwiththisframeworkfor
interpretingthetextsofScripturealone.Hehasinmindtheneedtounderstandthe
wholeoftheScripture,asonecoherentnarrativeunfoldingthroughoutallofhuman
history.
90Ibid.,63.91Ibid.,75.92Ibid.,62‐63.
47
Consequently,Bonaventuresuggestsasecondmannerofinterpreting
Scripturethatcallsforanalysisofwhathecallsthefiguraesacramentalesinthe
wholeofScripture.Inthismodel,thereare“sacramentalfigures”thatpointtothe
presenceofChristthroughoutScriptureespeciallyashecomesintoconflictwith
forcesoftheanti‐Christ.FailingtociteanyspecificexamplesintheBible,Ratzinger
citesBonaventure’sgeneraldialecticexplanationofthewholeofthescriptural
narrative:“AllthemysteriesofScripturetreatofChristwithhisBodyandofthe
Anti‐ChristandtheDevilwithhiscohorts.ThisisthemeaningofSt.Augustineinhis
bookontheCityofGod.”93WhereasinAugustine’sCivitasDei,Ratzingerexplains,
conflictanddualityiswhatmakessenseofthewholeofhistory,forBonaventure,
thedialecticofconflictbetweentheChristandtheanti‐Christisrealbutitis
relegatedtothissecondofthreewaysofapproachingScripture.94
Afterthespiritualisintelligentiaandthefiguraesacramentales,Bonaventure
characterizesthethirdandmostfruitfulapproachtoScriptureasthatofthe
multiformestheoriaewhereinthereadercanapprehendmanymanifestationsof
theoria,ormeaning,oftheonetruth,oftheoneWordbeingspokenthroughoutthe
wholeofScripture.95HereisthehighestlevelofunderstandingofScripture,for
Bonaventure.Itisnotcharacterizedsimplybythedialecticstrugglebetweenthe
Christandtheanti‐Christ,butratherbytheone,unifiedbut“multiform”
communicationofGodforthesakeofdrawinghumanityintorelationship.The
centralityoftheLogosisessentialforthisaspectofBonaventure’stheologyof
93Ibid.,10.Cf.,HexameronXIIIXV.94Ibid.95Ibid.,7.
48
history.TheLogosthroughwhichallthingsinheavenandoneartharecreated,is
thesameLogosspokeninhumanhistory.FromAdamandNoah,toAbraham,
Moses,Davidandalltheprophets,allthewayuptothecomingofChristandinthe
lifeoftheChurchfoundedonChrist,many“theoriae”appearinthescopeof
salvationhistory,buttheyareexpressiveoftheoneLogos,orWordofGod.For
example,CharlemagneisreflectedinthelifeoftheChurchasaZealot,reflectiveof
hisOldTestamentpatterns,EzekielandHosea.Inacontraryway,“HenryIVand
FredrickIarehostilekingscorrespondingtoManasses.”Finally,though,inamost
importantway,FrancisofAssisiisthecontemporaryfigureassociatedwiththe
comingofanageofPax.AssociatedwithJohntheBaptist,Francisplaysacrucial
roleinBonaventure’sunderstandingoftheimmediatepastinordertounderstand
thenearfuture.InthefigureofFrancis,themostimportantinstanceofatheoriais
offeredinBonaventure’sschema.96Heisonecentralcharacterinthelargercontext
ofthenarrativeofsalvationhistory.
RevelationUnfoldinginHistory:TheManySeminaofOneLogos
Bonaventureusesanorganicmetaphortoconcretizethismodelofthe
multiformestheoriae.Drawinguponaphilosophicalimagecommonsincethetime
ofZenoandtheStoicswhodescribedthelogoispermatikoi(seedsoftheword)that
makecreationintelligible,97BonaventuresuggeststhatfromtheoneLogosofGod,
many“semina”,orseeds,areproducedandplantedinthesoilofhumanhistoryas
well.Bonaventurewrites,“Whocanknowthenumberofseedswhichexist?For96Ibid.,30‐31.97Inalaterwork,RatzingerspellsoutthedevelopmentofthisthoughtfromancientGreekphilosophytoitsinteractionwithbiblicalbelief.SeeJosephRatzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004),137‐150.
49
fromonesingleseed,entireforestsgrowup;andtheyinturnbringforth
innumerableseeds.Soithappensthatinnumerabletheoriescanarisefrom
ScripturethatonlyGodcangraspinHisknowledge.Asnewseedscomefrom
plants,soalsonewtheoriesandnewmeaningcomefromScripture.”98
ThisinterpretiveimageoftheseediskeytoBonaventure’swholetheologyof
history,becauseithelpstoaccountforthewaythewholeofsalvationhistory
unfolds‐notjustwithinwhatisrecountedinScripture,butincludingallofhuman
historyuptothepresentmoment.Thechallengeforthepresentistounderstand,
then,themeaningofcurrentcircumstancesinlightofthewholenarrativeupuntil
now.Trueunderstandingofanypresentcontextcanonlybeobtainedinlightofthe
earlierseminathathadsprungforthfromtheOneLogosinthepast.99Though
Ratzingerdoesnotindicatethisexplicitly,itseemsevidentthatthereisofferedhere,
theunderlyingprincipleallowingfordevelopmentinChristiandoctrineaswell.The
appearanceoftheChurchandthewayinwhichtheChristianmysteriesare
articulatedinanygivenagemaydifferbutthereisstillcoherencetoitallinlightof
theunityandintelligibilityoftheLogos,theoriginalsourceofthewholestoryof
salvationhistoryfromitsinception.Indeedthecoherentexpressionofthis
principleofthemanyseedscomingfromtheoneWordisgivenwithinScripture
itself.RatzingerhighlightshowBonaventure’stheologyofrevelationinhistoryhas
todowiththeinner‐relationshipoftheOldandNewTestaments.ForBonaventure,
theOldTestamentgiveswaytotheNewTestamentasoneseedlingbegets
98Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,7.CitingHex.XIII,2.99Ibid.,20.
50
another.100Furthermore,the‘seed’oftheWordmadefleshinthepresenceofJesus,
characterizestheessenceoftheidentityoftheChurch,accordingtoRatzinger’s
analysis.Inthisway,then,bothwhatwecalltheOldandtheNewTestament,
compriseonetestament,oneexpressionoftheoneLogosofGodwhoisultimately
revealedinJesusChristwhocontinuestobeknownwithintheChurch.101Thereis,
then,atwo‐foldsenseoftheunfoldingofrevelation.Inonesense,thereisalinear
unfoldingofrevelationinsalvationhistoryfromtheeventsoftheOldTestament
leadinguptotheChrist‐eventthatisthebasisoftheNewTestament.Oncethe
Christeventoccurs,however,historyisnowconceivedof,inBonaventure’sview,
notinalinearmanner,butaccordingtothedynamicofconcentriccirclesatthe
heartofwhichisthefullnessofrevelation,thepersonofChrist,theLogositself
madeflesh.
ChristasCenter,notEnd,ofHistory
InthismetaphorofthemanyseedsbeingplantedfromtheoneLogos,history
beginstobeconceivedofinaprogressivemanner.Thisprogress,however,isinthe
modeofanarrativeasopposedtothelinearcharacterasisthecaseinthescholastic
traditionbasedontheteleologyofAristotle.102Ratzingerexplains,“Bonaventure
seesAristotle’sconceptoftimetobelinear;itisaninfinitelinewithoutordering.In
contrastwiththis,Bonaventureholdsatypeofcircularmovementastheimageof
Christianunderstandingoftime,thedoublemovementofegressusandregressus.”103
ForBonaventure,thecenterpointofthiscircular,orperhapsspherical,notionof100Ibid.,12.101Ibid.102Ibid.,143.103Ibid.,144.
51
historyisthepersonChrist.Fromthecenterpointofhistory,whichisthe
IncarnationoftheEternalWordinhumanhistory,growthanddevelopmentflow
outwarduntilallofhistoryisvivifiedaccordingtothepowerofthatwhichliesatthe
center.OneofBonaventure’sgreatcontributions,inRatzinger’sviewisthe
developmentofthisChristocentricviewofhumanhistory.ChallengedbyJoachimof
Fiore’svisionofsalvationhistory,Bonaventurewasforcedtodealwiththequestion
ofhistoryinanewway.BonaventurearguedagainstJoachimismthatsupposed
“new”revelationbeyondtheageofChristintotheAgeoftheSpirit.Theargument
foradeeplyChristocentrichermeneuticofScriptureandallofhistorybecame
centralforBonaventureandiscertainlyacentralprincipleforRatzinger.Thefruit
ofhiscontemplationonthematterleftwiththeChurchtheearlyseedsofakindof
an“historicalconsciousness”whenitcomestodoingtheology.104Thisconcentric
shapeofhumanhistoryisalsothencomplementedinBonaventure’smodelbya
differentsortofcircularpatternthatisonaverticalplane,connectingeternityand
history.Inthissense,thecircularmovementofsalvationseeshistoryflowingfrom
GodandultimatelybacktoGodbywayofChrist,inanegressusandaregressusfrom
GodtohumanityandbacktoGodthroughthefigureofChrist.105
ForBonaventure,ChrististhecenterofhistorypreciselyasWord,asthe
Logos.ThereiscommunicationfromGodatthecenterofhistory.Andhowandin
whatwayhistory“progresses”relatestothenatureandqualityofthehuman
responsetothatWord.ThroughtheChurch,theWordcontinuestobe
104Ibid.,106.105Ibid.,145‐147.
52
communicatedandrevealedinhistoryandisthesourceofcoherenceinallof
history.ThisLogosmadefleshinChrist,whoismanifestedultimatelyaslove,isthe
unifyingprincipleandthesourceandsummit,sotospeak,ofallofhumanhistory.
Thefulfillmentofhistorycomes,notwhenthe“endoftheline”isreached,butwhen
lovecomestofruitionandprevailsintheheartsandlivesofthepeopletowhomthis
lovehasbeenoffered,fromthepersonofChrist.Loveitselfentershistorywhenthe
WordismadefleshinChrist.Thereforethe“end”,orbetter,thefulfillment,of
historyhappenswhentheextensionoftheWordmadefleshinhistory“becomesall
inall”(1Cor.15:28)‐whenloveisallthatremains(1Cor13:13).
HistoricalConsciousness
InBonaventure’sschema,historyisgivenimportancepreciselybecauseof
thefactthatitisthelocuswhereintheWordofloveisplantedatitsheartinorderto
redeemitfromwithin,fromitscenter.Godwhoissovereignoverhumanhistory
givesnewdepthtothemeaningofhistorybecauseofthefactthatheentersintoit.
Ratzingerexplainsthatwhentheinfancynarrativesinthegospelsproclaimthatthe
Incarnationhappenedinthefullnessoftime,thisitselfisaprofessionoffaithinthe
Incarnation,becausewhatmakestime“full”isnothingattributableordiscoverable
fromwithinthehorizonoftimeitself,butonlybyvirtueofthefactthattheEternal
hasenteredintothetemporal.Thiseventthatmarksthefullnessoftimebecomes
thecenteroftimeinBonaventure’stheologyofhistory.106Fromthiscenter,history
itselfbeginstoberedeemedfromtheinsidebecauseofwhathasenteredintoit
106Ibid.,110.
53
fromtheoutside.Theorientationtowardthefuture,then,unfoldsbasedonthis
actioDivinafromabove.Inordertounderstandthepresentandanticipatethe
shapeofthefuture,then,acertain“historicalconsciousness”isrequiredthatis
necessarilyeschatologicalaswell.107
WithinBonaventure’stheologyofhistory,thevirtueofhopebecomesa
majorreferencepointforthewholeofhisvision.Authentichopeineveryageisto
bediscoveredandcultivatedfromwithinhistoryandnotoutsideofit.Truehopeis
notcharacterizedasakindofescapefromdifficulthistoricalreality.This
embodimentofhopefromwithinhistoryiswhatcharacterizesthelifeandmission
oftheChurchthatgetsitslifeandpurposefromChrist,itscenter.Christisboththe
centerandthefulfillmentofhistory,forBonaventure.Ratzingerconsistently
embracesthissameChristo‐centricviewofallofhumanhistorythatis
fundamentallya“movementofegressusfromGod;andregressustohimthrough
JesusChrist.”108Theinner‐principleofthismovementofhistoryislovethatflows
fromGodandflowsbacktoGod.Inthissense,afurtherinterpretivemechanismfor
salvationhistorycomestothefore,namelyloveasthatwhich“moves”history
towarditsgradualfulfillment.TheconclusionofRatzinger’sstudyofBonaventure
providesakeytounderstandingwhatmotivatesandinformsthewholeofhisown
theology:
107Ibid.,106‐108.RatzingerseesthishistoricalconsciousnessasthegreatcontributionmadebyJoachimintheology,evenifhearrivedatitsimportanceinaninelegantmanner.108Nichols,TheThoughtofPopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofJosephRatzinger(NewYork:Burns&Oates,2007),42.
54
bothAugustineandBonaventureknowthattheChurchwhichhopesforpeaceinthefutureis,nonetheless,obligedtoloveinthepresent;andtheybothrealizethatthekingdomofeternalpeaceisgrowingintheheartsofthosewhofulfillChrist’slawofloveintheirownparticularage.BothseethemselvessubjecttothewordoftheApostle:“Sothereremainfaith,hopeandlove,thesethree.Butthegreatestoftheseislove”(1Cor.13:3).109
EncounteringChrist,encounteringloveitselfinhistory,isthefoundationforthelife
oftheChurch,then.Andfromthisencounterwithlove,theChurch’slifeistobe
characterizedbythatsameidentityasthelocusforthewholeworldofthedialogical
encounterwithlove.ThisprinciplederivedfromBonaventureofthecentralityof
thedialogicalencounterwiththeWordbecamethebasisforRatzinger’s
contributionthathewouldsoonmakeintheSecondVaticanCouncil.
II.QuaestioDisputata:“Tradition”inDeliberationsofDeiVerbum
RatzingerbroughtwithhimthisBonaventurianunderstandingofthe
historicalanddialogicalnatureofrevelationtohisroleasaperitusattheSecond
VaticanCouncil.Thethirty‐fouryearoldtheologianwasaskedbyCardinalJosef
FringsofKöln,beforetheCouncilhadstarted,tohelpwiththepreparatorywork.
Ultimately,asRatzingerwouldserveasFring’sofficialperitus,hewouldcontribute
alongwithseveralothertheologiansincludingKarlRahner,inthecraftingofthe
ConstitutiononDivineRevelation.110Basedonthispreparatorywork,Rahnerand
Ratzingerendedupwritingarticlesindependentlythatlaterwerejoinedtogether
forabookentitledRevelationandTradition,publishedinGermanin1965andthen
109Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,163.110W.J.Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:AChapterintheLifeofPopeBenedictXVI(NewOrleans,LA:LoyolaUniversity,2007),24.
55
translatedandreleasedinEnglishin1966.111Thepublisher’sintroductiontothe
booksituatesitconsciouslyintheadextrasettingofthenewecumenismemerging
inthetimeoftheCouncilaswellastheadintracontextoftheCatholicChurch
emergingoutofthemodernistcrisisandtheproblemofhistoricalconsciousness
posedbyit.Theirworkrepresentsthemostproximateeffortsbeingmadebytwoof
themostinfluentialperitiworkingonDeiVerbumtogeneratenewwaystoarticulate
theessentialsoftheChurch’sself‐understandinginrelationshiptoGod’sself‐
communication.
Rahner’sintroductorychapterforRevelationandTradition,offeredfirstasa
lectureatMünsterin1964,beginsbyacknowledgingtheimmanentismofsome
strandsofmodernismofthelatenineteenthcenturywhereintherecanappeartobe
acertain“inevitabledevelopment,immanentinhumanhistory,ofman’s‘religious
needs.’”112Rahneralsonotesthereactiontothisimmanentismbeingtheopposite
extremeofextrinsicisminwhichrevelationcomestobeseenasGod’sintervention,
“purelyfromtheoutside”ofhumanity’srealitywhichcommunicatesinformation
fromGodthatisextrinsictoGod’sownidentity.113Thetimewasnowripe,Rahner
arguedinthisessay,foranewunderstandingofrevelationthatcouldbridgethis
gapbetweentheimmanentismandextrinsicismofmoderntheology.Hebeginshis
explorationofthenatureofrevelationwithacharacteristicanthropologicalstarting
point.Here,heexplainsthenecessityto
111KarlRahnerandJosephRatzinger,RevelationandTradition(London:Herder,1966).112Ibid.,10.113Ibid.
56
assumethateveryhumanbeingiselevatedbygraceinhistranscendentalintellectualityinanon‐reflexmanner;thatthis‘entitative’divinization‐whichisprofferedtofreedom,evenifitisnotacceptedfreelyinfaith‐involvesatranscendentaldivinizationofthefundamentalsubjectiveattitude,theultimatehorizonsofman’sknowledgeandfreedom,intheperspectiveofwhichheaccomplisheshislife.114
WhileRahnerinsiststhatthis‘entitativedivinization’canoccuronlyinthe
contextofhumanfreedominhistory,hismannerofarticulatingthenew
understandingofrevelationisgivenprimarilyinthespeculativelanguageof
hisThomisticanthropologythatwasencounteringtheexistentialismofthe
day.115Whileheinsistsuponthehistoricalnatureofhumanexperienceof
revelation,hisdescriptionofthathistoricityremainsmoreconceptualthan
concrete.
Ratzingerundertookhistaskinthisbookfromanhistoricalperspectivemore
narrativeinstyle.BeginningwiththeNewTestamentproclamation“Jesusisthe
Christ”,hetracesinseveralwaysfromtheOldTestamenthowitisthattheChrist
eventisthefulfillmentofwhathadbeenpromisedoverthegenerations.116
Underlyingthedevelopmentofthesegenerationsistheinteractionofthegramma
andpneuma,asSt.Paulputit.IntheOldTestament,thewrittenprophecyhadbeen
anticipatingitsfulfillment.St.PaulseesChristasthepneumawhomakestherestof
Scriptureintelligible(2Cor3:6‐18).WhetheritistheprophetIsaiah,Joelor
JeremiahproclaimingthehopeofaMessiah,Ratzingerasserts,“ineachcase,the
114Ibid.,16.115SeeespeciallyThomasSheehan’s“Rahner’sTranscendentalProject”andDanielDonovan’s“RevelationandFaith”inDeclanMarmionandMaryE.Hines,TheCambridgeCompaniontoKarlRahner(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005),318.116RahnerandRatzinger,RevelationandTradition,37‐38
57
timeinauguratedbytheChristeventnowappearsastheanswertoalineofhope,
whichexpectedthatinthefutureagescripturewould,inanultimatesense,be
renderedactuallysuperfluousbytheimmediateproximityofthedivineteacherin
manhimself.”117Here,then,isthebasisforthelivingtraditionthatunfoldsinthe
lifeoftheChurchandfollowsthebasicpatternofthedramaofsalvationhistory.
ForRatzinger,thisnarrativeisthestartingpointforunderstandinghowitisthat
traditionoperatesandwhatindeedtraditionis,initsessence.Thestorytakesthe
leadoverspeculation.
Onlyafterdealingwiththeconcretehistoricalparticularsabouthowthe
scripturalaccountsgivewaytothelifeoftheChurch,doeshethenofferareflection
onthenatureoftraditionitselfasoperatingaccordingtotheprinciplesofthe
analogiafidei.TheOldTestament,hesays,istobeunderstoodinlightoftheChrist
eventand“alsoaninterpretationoftheChristeventitselfonthebasisofthe
pneuma,whichmeansonthebasisoftheChurch’spresent.”118Themethodderived
forunderstandingtradition,then,doesnotstartwithaspeculativeorphilosophical
framework,butratheritbeginswiththenarrativeofScriptureandsalvationhistory
andonlythenattemptstodiscoverpatternsofmeaningandintelligibility.Many
yearslater,Ratzingerwouldnotethatitwasinthecontextofwritingthisbookwith
Rahnerthathebegantorealizetheyoccupied“differenttheologicalplanets.”119For
Ratzinger,thedifferentiatingcharacteristicof“hisplanet”wasthemethodbasing
histheologyofrevelationontheexperienceofthesalvation‐historicalnarrativeof117Ibid.,38.118Ibid.,42.119Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,128.
58
theBiblethatcontinuesinthelifeoftheChurchasopposedtothemorespeculative
orconceptualmodeofRahner.ThoughRatzinger’sstyleishistorical,itisnot
primarilyanthropologicalbecausethenarrativehefollowsinhistoryisthatshaped
bytheactionsofGodinhistory.Thestartingpointisnotman’snaturaloreven
supernaturalinclinationstowardGod.
Bygivingprimacytotheactiodivinainhistory,toGod’srevelationofhisWordin
history,Ratzingeralsofoundcommonecumenicalgroundonwhichtostand
especiallywithEvangelicalProtestants.Strikinganoteofconcernregarding
ecumenismfromthebeginning,heexplainsinhisfirstessaythatthequestionofthe
innerrelationshipbetweenrevelation,Scripture,traditionandtheChurchhasbeen
thesourceofdivisionamongChristianssincethetimeofMartinLuther.120While
theReformerssawthemagisterialteachingsoftheChurchasaccretionsoftradition
ontotheonlyauthenticrevelationgivenbyGodsolascriptura,thebasicCatholic
understandinghasbeenthattherevelationofGod,asrecountedinScripture,
continuestobedeepenedinunderstandingwithinthelivingtraditionoftheChurch,
centeredonChristandenlightenedbytheHolySpirit.HenotesthatevenPhilip
MelancthonconcededthatiftheChurchwould“allowtheGospel”thatitwould
behoovetheReformerstoallowfortheecclesiologicalstructuresofbishopswith
thepopeprimaryamongthemasanimportantdimensionofministrywithinthe
Church.This,Melanchtonrecognized,wouldallowfortheongoingappropriation
120RahnerandRatzinger,RevelationandTradition,27‐28.
59
preciselyofthepoweroftheGospelinthelivesofthefaithful.121AstheReformers
insistedontheprimacyoftheWord“over”theChurch,acaricatureoftheTridentine
positionhasbeentheChurch’sinsistenceonherroleasbeing“over”theWord.
Rather,asRatzingerexplains,thetruepositionofTrentwastoinsistonthefactof
theLordgivingtheWordtotheChurchsothattheChurchmightalwaysbecentered
ontheWordandbetheauthenticinterpreterofitthroughouthistory.122This
ongoingappropriationoftheWordiswhatconstitutestradition,intheCatholic
sense.Therefore,ratherthancollapsingtheWordintoanidentificationwith
ScriptureasisthetendencyfortheReformationtradition,theCatholicpositionhas
beentoseetheappropriationoftheWordasalwaysbeginningwithScriptureand
thenunfoldingthroughouthistoryinawaythatmakespossibleanever‐developing
tradition.
RatzingernotesthestrengthsandweaknessesofboththeProtestantand
TridentineapproachestothequestionofthereceivingoftheWordbytheChurch.
IntheProtestanttradition,onceRevelationcomestobeidentifiedwithScripture,123
oncethedistinctioniscollapsedanditisassertedthattheWordis“over”the
Church,thenaninterpretiveproblememerges.AstheWordisgivenautonomywith
respecttothelivingChurch,thesameWordis“deliveredtothecapriceofthe
exegetes.”124Thisinterpretiveproblempointedtointhemid1960salso
characterizes,forRatzinger,thepresentdaycrisiscreatedbysomeofthelimitations
121Ibid.,28.122Ibid.,30123Ibid.,34.124Ibid.,31.
60
ofthehistoricalcriticalmethod.Inthissituation,manymodernexegeteshave
vacatedtheScriptureofthepoweroftheWordofGodandconsequentlyScripture
“hasbecomeawordofthepast”tobedissectedbyprofessionalexperts,asthe
Churchallthewhilesitsidlyby.125OntheCatholicside,acertaindistortionhad
emergedinthepost‐Trenterawhereintheinsistenceontraditionasa“second
source”ofrevelationhadtoooftencometobeseenasstandinginitsown
autonomousposturewithrespecttotheScripturethatprecedesit.Scandalcouldbe
giveninthiscontextifitwereperceivedthatthemagisteriumoftheChurchcould
teachapartfromthenormativescriptures.
Ratzingerapproachedthisquestionoffundamentaltheologybyfollowingthe
historicaldevelopmentsinthedebateaboutthequestionoftradition.Hedoessoin
hiscontributiontoRevelationandTraditionbyenteringintodialoguewitha
contemporaryandinfluentialworkatthetimeofthedogmatictheologianfrom
Tübingen,J.R.Geiselmann.126Geiselmann’shistoricalanalysisofthedevelopment
oftheteachingonrevelationinthecontextoftheCouncilofTrenthelpedclarifythe
questionsforthedeliberationsatVaticanII.127Geiselmanndemonstratesthatinthe
ActsoftheCouncilofTrent,intheearlydraftsofthedocumentonrevelation,the
thesiswasadvancedthatwhatGodrevealsistobefound“partiminlibris…partim
125JosephRatzinger,God'sWord:Scripture,Tradition,Office.EditedbyPeterHunermann,andThomasSöding(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008),98.126JosefRupertGeiselmann,DieHeiligeSchriftUndDieTradition:ZuDenNeuerenKontroversenÜberDasVerhältnisDerHeiligenSchrift;ZuDenNichtgeschriebenenTraditionen(Freiburg:Herder,1962).127Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,124‐7.
61
in…traditionibus”‐partlyinscriptureandpartlyintradition.128Thispartial
attributionofrevelationtoScriptureandpartialattributiontotraditionwouldhave
clearlydelineatedthetwo‐sourcenatureofrevelationindicatingthatsome
revelationcouldbefoundintraditionthatisnotinScripture.Thiswouldalsohave
madereconciliationwithProtestantismonthisquestionimpossible.Intheend,
however,thefathersatTrentdecideduponthemoresimpleformulation,“inlibris
scriptisetsinescriptotraditionibus”indicatingthatrevelationishandedonbothin
writtenScriptureandinunwrittentradition.129ThefactthatTrentsettledonthis
formulationkeptopenthedoor,inGeiselmann’sview,tothepossibilityofaCatholic
rapprochementwithProtestantinsistenceonseeingrevelationasexpressedsola
scriptura.ForGeiselmann,byconcludingthatrevelationissimplyfoundin
Scriptureandintradition,aCatholiccouldingoodconsciencegoalongwiththe
Reformationdoctrineofthe“materialsufficiency”ofScripture.130
Ratzinger,admiringofthescholarshipandmethodologyofGeiselmanningoing
backtothehistoricalnarrativeofdevelopmentsatTrent,soon,however,became
criticalofhisinterpretiveconclusions.InordertoavoidtheProtestantmistakeof
collapsingrevelationwithScripture131andafrequentCatholicmisinterpretationof
128HerbertVorgrimler,ed.,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,v.<1‐5>(NewYork:herderandHerder,1967),3:156.Cf.,Geiselmann,DieHeiligeSchriftUndDieTradition,287.129Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:157.130RahnerandRatzinger,RevelationandTradition,34.131AccordingtoBenedictThomasViviano,OP,despitetheobjectionspeoplelikeRatzingermade,thisispreciselytheinterpretationmanyCatholicexegetestookinthewakeoftheCouncil,acceptingthematerialsufficiencyofscriptureinmattersoffaitheveniftheyacknowledgetheneedfortraditionforinterpretationofscripturelateron.Theyfailtosee,however,theintegralroletraditionplaysintheunfoldingofrevelationitself.SeeViviano’sessay,“TheNormativityofScriptureandTraditioninRecentCatholicTheology”inScripture'sDoctrineandTheology'sBible:HowtheNewTestamentShapesChristianDogmatics.EditedbyMarkusBockmuehlandAlanJ.Torrance(GrandRapids,MI:BakerAcademic,2008),125‐131.
62
the“twosource”theoryofrevelationgivenatTrentwhichcouldseparatethe
substanceofScriptureandtraditiontoodrastically,heconcludedthatthereal
concernistomorefundamentallyunderstandthe“modeofpresenceoftheWordof
Godamongthefaithful”132notinatheoreticalway,butasitunfoldsinthe
contingenciesofhistory.Afterall,hesays,“Revelationalwaysandonlybecomes
realitywherethereisfaith.”133WeseeheretheinfluenceofBonaventureonhis
thought,keepinghistoricityalwaysbeforehimwhenitcomestothequestionof
revelation.TherealtaskfortheChurch,heconcluded,andultimatelythetaskthat
theSecondVaticanCounciltookupsofruitfullyinDeiVerbum,isto“gobehindthe
positivesources,scriptureandtradition,totheirinnersource,revelation,theliving
wordofGodfromwhichscriptureandtraditionspringandwithoutwhichtheir
significanceforfaithcannotbeunderstood.”134Thismethodheproposedclearly
harkensbacktohisdiscoveryinBonaventureofthemanyseminaoftheoneLogos
insalvationhistoryasawayofdescribingthetransmissionofrevelationinhistory.
Onlyfromtheperspectivegainedonceonehas“gonebehind”thepositive
sourcesofScriptureandtraditiontorevelationitself,doesitbecomepossibleto
begintoseetheunfoldingofthatWordinsalvationhistory.Ratzingerexplainsthat
thisdynamicisatworkeveninScriptureitself.FortherelationshipoftheOld
TestamentandtheNewTestamentisrightlyunderstoodasoneexpressionofthe
WordofGodthatisunfoldinginsalvationhistory.Inonesense,henotes,onlythe
OldTestamentisrightlyconsideredScripture.ForthewritersoftheNew
132RahnerandRatzinger,RevelationandTradition,34.133Ibid.,36.134Ibid.,34.
63
Testament,theonlyscriptureswerethosecontainedintheOldTestament.TheNew
Testament,then,istheSpirit‐ledinterpretationoftheOldTestamentinlightofthe
Christ‐event.135Thescriptures(OldTestament)arefulfilledandtherefore
intelligibleonlyinlightoftheChrist‐eventandthebeginningoftheinterpretationof
thiseventisthesetofwritingscontainedinwhatcomestoberecognizedasthe
NewTestament.RatzingernotesthatinseveralplacesintheNewTestament,the
OldTestamentprophecyisseenastheletter(gramma)andtheNewTestamentas
thespirit(pnuema)oftheoneunfoldingrevelationofGod’sWordamonghis
faithful.136Atwork,then,evenwithintheOldandNewTestamentsisakindof
principleoftraditionthatishandingdowntofuturegenerationsthatwhichhas
beenreceivedinfaithfromGodinpreviousgenerations,sothatfaithmighttake
rootinthefutureaswell.AtthecenterofthisprocessistheChristevent‐the
fullnessofGod’srevelation.Here,the“letter”ofthe“old”testamentisfulfilledand
thenonlyunderstoodaccordingtotheguidanceoftheSpirit‐whichthenmakes
possiblethereceptionofthe“new”testament.Theongoingrevelation
communicatedinthetraditionoftheChurch,isalwaysfoundedonScriptureand
appropriatedauthenticallyonlywhenseenthroughthelensoftheChristevent.The
natureofthisprincipleoftheunfoldingoftraditionisthefocusofRatzinger’s
concludingremarksinthisessay.
135Ibid.,37.136Ibid.,38.Invariousways,NewTestamentwitnessesrefertoOldTestamentpropheciesanticipatingtheChristevent,eg.Paulin2Cor3:6‐18referringtoJer31:31;JohnreferringtoIsaiah54:13;PeterinActs2:14‐36referringtoJoel3:1‐5.
64
Basedinpartonhisownanalysisofthedebatesthatcontributedtothe
formulationoftheDecreeonRevelationatTrent,Ratzingernotesfourdistinct
“strata”offactorsinvolvedintheunfoldingofrevelationinhistory:
1.theinscriptionofrevelation(=thegospel)notonlyintheBible,butinmen’shearts
2.theHolySpiritspeakingthroughoutthewholeageoftheChurch3.theconciliaractivityoftheChurch4.theliturgicaltraditionandthewholeofthetraditionoftheChurch’slife.137
MorewillbesaidabouthisarticulationofthemanifoldexpressionsofRevelation,
theWordofGod,tohumanityinalatersectionofthischapter,butweturnnowto
Ratzinger’sunderstandingofthesequestionsashereflectedbackuponthefinal
productofthefathersatVaticanII,inthepromulgationofDeiVerbum.
III.DeiVerbum:Revelation“SeenBasicallyasDialogue”138
InhisdescriptionoftheoriginsandbackgroundoftheDogmaticConstitutionon
DivineRevelation,DeiVerbum,RatzingerrecallsArchbishopFlorit’srelatiotothe
Councilonthefirsttwochaptersofthedocument:“Becauseofitsinnerimportance
aswellasthemanyvicissitudesthatithasundergone,thehistoryofthedraftonthe
ConstitutiononDivineRevelationhasfuseditselfwiththehistoryofthiscouncil
intoakindofunity.”139TheultimateteachingoftheCouncilonrevelationwould
provideanimportantbasisforhowtounderstandtheotherdocumentsrelatedto
liturgy,therelationshipoftheChurchtootherentitiesinthemodernworld,etc.
ThisissopreciselybecausewhatwasatstakeinthisConstitutionwasthequestion
137Ibid.,65‐66.138Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:171.139Ibid.,155.
65
ofhowtheChurchconceivesofGod’smostfundamentalinteractionwiththeworld,
reachingfrometernityintothecontingenciesofhumanhistory‐howtheeternal
Wordisspokeninhumanwords.TheCouncilembracedthevisionthat“thepattern
ofthisrevelationunfoldsthroughdeedsandwords”140bothincreationandin
history.Indeed,intheimmediatewakeoftheCouncil,Ratzingerhimselfdescribed
thenewlyemergingunderstandingofrevelationthatis“seenbasicallyas
dialogue.”141Thisunderstandingoftheunfoldingofrevelationthatisexpressedin
anongoingdialoguebetweenGodandhumanityinhumanhistory,inturnprovided
atheologicalfoundationfordiscussionsregardingotherpressingmattersincluding
howtheChurchrelatestootherChristians,totheJewishpeople,tonon‐Christian
believersandtothemodernworldasawhole.Whileretainingconfidenceinhow
GodhadrevealedhimselfinScriptureandtradition,andmostfullythroughChristin
theCatholicChurch,spacewasalsocreatedforunderstandingtheongoing
deepeningofthisrevelationthattakesplaceinthecontextofdialoguewiththose
outsidetheChurch.Again,thiscategoryofdialogueiscentralandthewayof
understandingthedialogueisalwaysthroughtheChristologicalhermeneuticthat
seesthepersonofJesusChristasthefullnessofthedialogueitselfbetweenGodand
humanity.Indeed,theopeningwordsoftheConstitutionhighlighttheroleof
humanreceptivity,the“hearing”ofthewordofGod.142Amerefiveyearsafterthe
youngstudentJosephRatzingerhadhisstruggletohavehisHabilitationsschrift
140VaticanCouncil(2nd:1962‐1965),VaticanCouncilII:TheBasicSixteenDocuments:Constitutions,Decrees,Declarations.EditedbyAustinFlannery(Dublin,Ireland:Costello;DominicanPublications,1996).See“DeiVerbum”#2,98.141Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:171.142Ibid.,DeiVerbum#1,97.
66
approvedbecauseofhisdefenseofhumanity’sessentialroleinit,“this‘novel’
understandingofrevelation…wouldproverevolutionaryatthebeginningofthe
SecondVaticanCouncilandsetthetenorforthewholecouncil”initsultimate
insistenceonrevelationas“historicalandcontextual”andthereforehaving
everythingtodowithGod’sdialoguepartner‐thehumanfamily.143
Ratzingernotesthebackgroundoftheintellectualcurrentthathelpedtoinform
theChurch’sultimatearticulationofherteachingonthisquestion.144First,the
“Romanticmovement”hadbeendevelopinganunderstandingoftradition,notin
materialterms,butinmoreorganictermssuggestiveoftheprincipleof
developmentandgrowth.Thoughhedoesnotdescribethemainfiguresinthis
“Romanticmovement,”heassociatesitwiththeneed,aftertheproclamationofthe
MariandogmaoftheImmaculateConceptionin1854,tounderstandtraditionas
developingandnotsimplysomethingthatishandeddownneatlyfromone
generationtothenext.HenotesCardinalNewmanasonewhohadbeeninfluenced
byRomanticisminthisregard.145Thesecondaspectoftheintellectualclimatethat
affectedthesediscussions,inRatzinger’sview,wasthechallengeposedbyhistorical
criticalmethodsofexegesisthatwereforcingtheChurchtotakemoreseriouslythe
demandsof“historicalconsciousness”andtheroleofhumanfactorsinthe
compositionofdivinelyinspiredtexts.Thethirdmostimportantinfluenceinthe
culturethatshapedthesediscussionsonrevelationattheCouncil,wasthefactthat
143EmerydeGaálGyulai,TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2010),66‐67.144Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:155‐9.145Ibid.,155‐6.
67
therehadalreadybeenintheair,withinthelifeoftheChurch,anewfamiliarity
bothattheleveloftheologyaswellasthepietyof“thebiblicalmovement”wherein
thespiritualresourcesintheWordofGodwerebeingrediscoveredbyCatholics.In
hisownanalysisincloseproximitytotheCouncil’sconclusion,Ratzingerlooked
backonthecraftingofDeiVerbumagainstthebackdropofthese“signsofthetimes”
fromwhichitemerged.Thisreflectionitselfwasanactofhistoricalconsciousness
regardingthenatureoftheCouncilthatcontinuedtoreceiverevelationfromGodin
continuitywithwhathadprecededitandalsoinamannerresponsivetocurrent
historicalandculturalsituations.Havingdescribedsomeoftheculturaland
intellectualcontextoftheCouncil,Ratzingerthenprovidesanaccountofthe
dramaticdevelopmentofthedeliberationsthatultimatelyproducedDeiVerbum.
SettingAsideNeoscholasticismfortheLanguageofShepherds
Ratzingerhasdescribedindifferentplacesthenatureofhisdissatisfactionwith
theoriginalschematafortheCouncil’sdeliberationonthe“SourcesofRevelation”
thatwasgiventothecentralpreparatorycommittee.146Hewasnotaloneinhis
dissatisfaction.AsthepreparatoryschematawereintroducedtotheCouncilby
CardinalOttavianiinNovemberof1962,severalothercardinalsimmediatelygavea
nonplacetforvariousreasonsbutforemostamongthemwasthatintheircurrent
form,theywouldunderminethebasicecumenicaldesiresoftheCouncil.147Forhis
ownpart,Ratzingerrecallsthatwhilehesawnoerrorsintheinitialdraftsperse,he
146Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,156;Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol.3;JosephRatzinger,TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII(NewYork:PaulistPress,1966),185.147Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:160.
68
alsonoticedthatlittleoftherecentbiblical,patristicandliturgicalretrievals(which
hadthecapacitytohelpecumenicaldialogue)wereleavingtheirmarkonthetexts.
HispastoralconcernwithintheChurchwasthat“theygaveanimpressionofrigidity
andnarrownessthroughtheirexcessivedependencyonscholastictheology.In
otherwords,theyreflectedmorethethoughtofscholarsthanthatof“shepherds.”148
HenoteselsewherethatinthespiritoftheCouncilasitwasemerging,bishopsand
theologiansalikewerediscoveringthatapastoralbodysuchasthisshouldbe
“speakinginthelanguageofscripture,oftheearlyChurchFathersandof
contemporaryman”andthattechnicaltheologicallanguagehasitsplace,butthat
ultimately,it“doesnotbelonginthekerygmaandinourconfessionoffaith.”149
InRatzinger’sview,thepreparatoryschemataforDeiVerbuminitiallyreflected
thenotionofrevelationcharacterizedassubstantialinandofitselfandessentially
unrelatedtohistoryandthereforenotsubjecttodevelopment.150Ratzingernotesin
hisearlyrecollectionsofthedynamicsoftheCouncilthatthefirstdraftsforthe
Constitutiononrevelationwereprimarily“anti‐modernist”intheirscopeofconcern
andconsequentlyrathercoldwhencomparedtothewarm,hopefulandinnovative
toneofthedocumentontherenewaloftheliturgy.151Theinitialtendencyofthe
preparatorycommissionwastocontinuethemagisterialtrajectoryofthelate
nineteenthcentury,beginningwiththecondemnationofsubjectivismwithrespect
tothequestionofrevelationintheSyllabusofErrors.Eventuallythistendencygave
148Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,121.149Ratzinger,TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII,45.150ThomasP.Rausch,PopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontoHisTheologicalVision(NewYork:PaulistPress,2009),63.151Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,120‐3.
69
waytoamorenuancedunderstandingoftheprimacyofthefactofGodrevealing
himselfbutalsotookintoconsiderationthedialogicalstructureofthisrevelation152
inwhichthereceiveroftherevelationisessentialtothemysteryofGod’sself‐
revelation.153AsthedeliberationsattheCouncilunfolded,fromRatzinger’s
perspective,itbecamemoreandmorecleartothefathersthattheymusttreatthe
questionofrevelationintermsofitsnecessarilyhistoricalcharacter.Consequently,
astheyengagedthehistoricalcharacterofrevelation,theysimultaneouslyshaped
thecharacteroftheologicalreflectioninthelanguageofthenarrativeofGod’s
interactionwithhumanity.Insodoing,thelanguageoftheCounciland
subsequentlyofmuchoftheologicalreflectionbecamemoreaccessiblepastorally
andspirituallytothepeopleofGod.
DeiFilius
Ratzingercontraststhedialogicalconceptionofrevelation154thatwaseventually
adoptedinDeiVerbumwithanearlier,nineteenthcenturyviewofitcraftedinterms
ofjuridicaldecreesrelatedtothewisdomandgoodnessultimatelyextrinsictoGod.
TheFirstVaticanCouncilarticulatedthemysteryofDivineRevelationinChapter2
oftheConstitution,DeiFiliusthus:“itpleasedhis[God’s]wisdomandhisbountyto
revealhimselfandhiseternaldecreesinanother,supernaturalway,astheapostle
says:inmanyandvariouswaysGodspokeofoldtoourfathersbytheprophets;but
intheselastdayshehasspokentousbyaSon’(Heb1:1‐2).”155ThoughtheFathers
152Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:170.153Rowland,Ratzinger'sFaith:TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI,48.154Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:171.155JacquesDupuisandJosefNeusner,TheChristianFaithintheDoctrinalDocumentsoftheCatholicChurch(NewYork:AlbaHouse,1996),43.
70
at the First Vatican Council did indicate that God reveals Himself se ipsum
Ratzinger sees the emphasis here on the eternal decrees of God’s will that are
external to Himself.156 Consequently what is revealed in this conception is
essentially a kind of monologue from God to humanity, rather than a dialogue
betweenGodandhumanity.Thetheoryofthe“materialtradition”ofrevelation‐the
handing down to humanity what is extrinsic to God ‐ while not erroneous in
Ratzinger’s eyes, does not do enough to plumb the depths of the fullness of the
mysteryofsalvation,either.
The reason for its inadequacy, he suggests, is, in part, the neo‐scholastic,
philosophical and analytical categories that it uses as its first principles. In his
commentaryonVaticanII,Ratzingernotes that themethodologyofVaticanI’sDei
Filius starts with natural knowledge of God and then briefly touches upon the
content of revelation before dwelling more on how scripture and tradition are
transmitted.DeiVerbum,ontheotherhand,beginswiththenarrative,withtheacts
ofGod inhistory, andonly at the end indicateshow it is that, as it turns out, the
human person is disposed to receive this revelation from the beginning.
Anthropology,then,isseeninlightofrevelationratherthantheotherwayaround.
SincewhenGodspeaksandrevealsHimself,herevealsnotjusthiswisdomandhis
goodness,buthisveryself, thatrevelationpenetratestotheverycoreofhumanity
thatwascreatedbythesameWordofGod.
156Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:171,Cf.,DS3004.
71
Humanity, then, can only be fulfilled, or actualized, when making a full and
conscious response to thatWord. Indeed, this is the foundationof theessenceof
Scriptureandtradition‐thattheyinvolveresponsestotheactionofGod’sspeaking
in history to humanity.157 Because the theological starting point of Ratzinger’s
thought, isGod’sspeaking,humanityisunderstoodinlightofthecapacitytobein
dialoguewithGod.SuchisthenatureofthetheologicalpersonalismofRatzinger’s
theologyandsuchisthecharacterofthewayDivineRevelationispresentedinthe
teaching of the Second Vatican Council. What had often previously been matter
consignedtotheabstractlanguageofpropositionalstatementshad,inDeiVerbum,
been informed by a new theological personalism thanks in no small part to the
contributionsofJosephRatzinger.158Suchananalysisringstrueuponreadingsuch
adescriptionoftheroleofScriptureinthelifeoftheChurchinthefinaldraftofDei
Verbum: “Inthesacredbooks, theFatherwhois inheavencomeslovinglytomeet
hischildren,andtalkswiththem.”159GiventhenarrativeformoftheScriptureitis
perhaps easier to see the dialogical nature of it. But in Ratzinger’s theology,
traditiontoofollowsthesamedialogicalpattern.
TraditionasExpressiveofRevelation
TheFathercomingfromheaventospeakwithhischildreninvariousways
throughouthistoryprovidesapersonalisticimageforhowtounderstandtheinner
157ScottHahn,CovenantandCommunion:TheBiblicalTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI(GrandRapids,Mich.:BrazosPress,2009),75.158JaredWicks,“VaticanIIonRevelationfromBehindtheScenes”TheologicalStudies.71.3.(September2010).SeealsoW.J.Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:AChapterintheLifeofPopeBenedictXVI(NewOrleans,LA:LoyolaUniversity,2007),24.159DeiVerbum#21.
72
relationshipofScriptureandtraditioninDeiVerbum.Thepivotalchoicebythe
fathersatVaticanIIof“goingbacktothecomprehensiverealityofthedeedsand
wordsofGod”asastartingpointmadeitpossibletogainfreedomfromthe
problematic“duplexfons”theoryofrevelationthatheldtwodistinctsourcesof
revelationinScriptureandtradition.160DeiVerbumreflectsRatzinger’spleato“go
behind”bothScriptureandtraditiontoseethatthereisonlyoneRevelationofGod,
expressedinatwo‐foldmanner.ThisissobecauseofthenatureofGod’sdesirein
whichhe“graciouslyarrangedthatwhathehadoncerevealedforthesalvationofall
peoples[asrecountedinScripture]shouldlastforeverinitsentiretyandbe
transmittedtoallgenerations.”161Tradition,then,isthatbywhichthesaving
revelationofGodisextendedtoallgenerations.ThoughwhattheChurchteaches
aretimelesstruths,shemustneverteachtheminawaythatseparatesthemfrom
thehistoricalcontextinwhichhermissiontoproclaimthelivingwordofGod,lies.
ThetruthcommunicatedintraditionistobebasedupontheLogosoftheFather
understoodasVerbumthatunfoldsinitscommunicationinhistoryandina
relationalandcommunalmodeandnotmerelyasRatiothatisaccessibletothe
individualmind.162MorewillbesaidonthisunfoldingunderstandingofLogosinthe
ChristiantraditioninthenextchapteronChristology.Fornow,however,sufficeit
tosaythatinordertoappropriatetraditionauthentically,theremustbe
attentivenesswithintheChurchtobothitseternal,universaldimension,aswellas
toitshistorical,particularexpression.Thisattentivenessdemandsan“historical
160Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:170.161DeiVerbum#7.162Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,189.
73
consciousness”thatissimultaneouslyinformedbythelightoffaith.Thisbasic
frameworkmakespossibleRatzinger’s“hermeneuticofreform”withintheone
subjectoftheChurchwhichbothpreserveswhatisconstantandalsoaccountsfor
andisopentogenuinedevelopmentwithinthelivingtradition.163Thishermeneutic
hasitsfoundationsmuchearlierintheChristiantraditionandearlierinRatzinger’s
ownformation,namelyinhisstudyofSt.Bonaventure.
BonaventurianEchoesinDeiVerbum
InDeiVerbum,wecanseetheimprintofRatzinger’sdialogicalapproachto
theologythatheinheritedfromBonaventure.DescribingtheWordofGodasliving
andeffectiveandunfoldingfromthe“speech”ofGod’sveryselfinScripture,
unfoldingintraditionandbeingfulfilledintheChristeventischaracteristicofthis
updatedapproachtorevelationthatisseenfundamentallyas“dialogical.”What
RatzingerarguedforandwhatendedupbeingadoptedinthevisionofferedinDei
Verbumwasalesspropositionalandmorenarrativeviewofrevelationthatis
necessarilyandalwaysseenascontingentuponhowitisreceivedbytheChurchat
anygiventimeinhistory.Theconditionofthe“soil”shapes,inpart,howthemany
“seeds”(semina)ofthe“oneLogos”takesroot,accordingtotheorganicmetaphor
borrowedfromBonaventure.164UntilGod’srevelationisreceivedandappropriated
anduntilthatseedofGod’sWordtakesroottherereallyisnorevelation,perse,
occurring.InBonaventurianterms,traditionisthatwhichisconsistentwiththe
original“seed”oftheWordofGod’sactioninsalvationhistory,recordedin163BenedictXVI.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman‐curia_en.html164Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,6‐12.
74
Scriptureandthenproclaimedperpetuallyatalltimesandinallplacesinthelifeof
theChurch.Inthisway,traditionisalwaysunifiedandcoherentandyetalways
developinginnewmanifestationsaswell.
RevelationinVerbumDomini
NearlyahalfcenturyaftertheCouncil,JosephRatzinger,nowPopeBenedict
XVI, promulgated his post‐synodal apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini, on the
topicoftheWordofGodinthelifeoftheChurch.165TakingupthesametopicasDei
Verbum, this time synthesizing thedeliberationsofbishopsgathered fromaround
theworldforthesynodontheWordofGod,Benedictwasabletoofferareflection
onthesedeliberationsinlightofhisowntheologicalvisionthatbythispointhadso
significantlyhelpedtoshapetheuniversalCatholicteachingonthesubject. Asthe
title of the opening section, “God in Dialogue” indicates, priority is given to the
divinesubjectwhospeaksandwhoseeksaresponsefromthehumanlistener. He
explains, “The novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes
known through the dialogue which he desires to have with us.”166 As such,
revelationistobefundamentallyunderstoodasdialoguethatunfoldsinhistory,and
thewaythisdialogueunfoldsispluriform.WhetheritisGod’srevelationofHimself
inHiscreation,accessiblethroughreason,orinsalvationhistory(comprisedofboth
Scriptureandtradition),accessibleonlythroughfaith,thereisdivinespeechbeing
communicatedtoahumanaudiencecapableofhearingandrespondingandthereby
165CatholicChurch(2005‐:BenedictXVI),VerbumDomini:TheWordofGodintheLifeandMissionoftheChurch:PostSynodalApostolicExhortationoftheHolyFatherPopeBenedictXVItothebishops,clergy,consecratedpersonsandthelayfaithfulontheWordofGodinthelifeandmissionoftheChurch.(Frederick,MD:WordAmongUs,2010).166Ibid.,#6.
75
enteringintodialoguewithGod.Heexplainsthattospeakofthe“WordofGod”isto
enter into a multifaceted reality, to participate in a symphony of words that is
reflectiveofasinglewordthat,takenasawholecanbeunderstoodasa“polyphonic
hymn.”167Thisissobecausethe“WordofGod”isunifiedandcoherentfirstofallas
theEternalWordofGod,theSecondPersonoftheTrinity.Butthe“WordofGod”is
alsomanifestedinmanyandvariousways:a.)initsfullnessasthepersonofJesus
Christ,b.)inCreationitselfasthelibernaturae,c.)inthemessageoftheprophetsof
theOldTestament,d.)intheproclamationoftheapostles,e.)intheLivingTradition
as a whole and finally, f.) in the written texts of Sacred Scripture. It is for this
reason,Benedictargues,thatChristianityisnotrightlyconsidereda“religionofthe
book”,butrathera“religionoftheWordofGod”whichis“livingandIncarnate”.168
Reading Verbum Domini as a further expression of the innovative teaching on
revelationofferedinDeiVerbum,oneclearlysensesRatzinger’s influencethatwas
so shaped by his own study of Bonaventure. In Bonaventure, Ratzinger found a
modeltheologianwholetthescripturalwitnessbehisstartingpointfortheological
reflectionanddidnotshyawayfromallowingtheologicalperspectivestoshapethe
way he did exegesis. Ratzinger makes use of this mutually informing dynamic
betweenexegesisandtheologyandinsodoingprovidesdirectionfortherenewalof
CatholictheologyeightcenturiesafterthecontributionsofhisFranciscanmentor.
167Ibid.,#17.168Ibid.#7.
76
IV.DirectionsforExegesisandTheology
InhiscommentaryonDeiVerbum,Ratzinger,inlookingforwardtothepost‐
conciliarera,madeadirectpleaforgreatercooperationandinteractionbetween
exegetesandtheologians,especiallydogmatictheologians.Heproposedthatthe
twogroupsofscholarsbe“independentpartners”foreachother.169Theongoing
researchoftheexegeteswouldkeeptheparticularitiesofthescripturesandits
historicalbasiseverbeforethetheologianswhoreflectuponthedoctrinethatflows
fromthishistoricalbiblicalwitness.Andtheologiansshouldbeabletoprovidethe
exegeteswithaconstantattentivenesstothehorizonoffaithwithintheChurchasa
hermeneuticalperspectivefortheirownattempttounderstandScripture.Though
onegroupshouldnotdictatetheparametersofthemethodoftheother,heargues,
theirpresenceoughtalwaysbebeforetheothersothattheymightalwayskeepin
mindtheperspectiveofthehistorical,ontheonehandandtheeternalonthe
other.170
Somefortyyearslater,inthe“Introduction”tothefirstvolumeofJesusof
Nazareth,PopeBenedictoffersaconciseyetcomprehensiveinstanceofhismost
maturethoughtonthenatureofauthenticbiblicalexegesis.171Benedictchallenges
exegetestoallowamoretheologicalunderstandingtoinformtheirworkwhile
169Vorgrimler,Commentary,3:160.Hewouldsubsequentlyelaborateandrefinethisvisionofthecomplementarityofexegesisanddogmaticsinmanyvariousplaces.Seeespecially“TheSpiritualBasisandEcclesialIdentityofTheology”inJosephRatzinger,TheNatureandMissionofTheology:EssaystoOrientTheologyinToday'sDebates(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1995),44‐72.Onecanreadthisessay,inlightofthedeepeningchasmbetweenthetwodisciples,asanimplicitre‐thinkingofhisphrasingcallingfor“independence”betweenthetwoto“interdependence”instead.170Ibid.,45‐72.SeeespeciallyRatzinger’sin‐depthexplorationoftheissuein“TheSpiritualBasisandEcclesialIdentityoftheTheologian”.171Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration.TranslatedbyAdrianJ.Walker.(NewYork:Doubleday,2007).
77
remainingtruetothedirectionsandinnovationstakenupinmodernhistorical
criticalmethodsofscripturalstudy.Fundamentaltothistheologicalapproachto
Scriptureisthepostureoffaithfromwhichonemustapproachthetexts.Operative
hereistheSecondVaticanCouncil’sadmonitionthatScriptureshouldbereadand
interpretedinlightofthesameSpiritbywhomitwaswritten.172Furthermore,in
ordertobeundertheinspirationofthesameSpirit,itisnecessaryforthereaderto
engagethescripturesasoneincommunionwiththewholeSpirit‐ledChurch‐tobe
engaginginthisdialoguewithGodfromtheperspectiveofthe“collectiveIofthe
Church.”173Morewillbesaidonthesemattersfromanecclesiologicalstandpointin
chapterfour.Itisenoughfornow,though,torecognizethatRatzinger’sexegetical
andtheologicalinsistenceonaspiritual,theologicalandecclesiologicalperspective
inapproachingScriptureisamarkoftheholisticapproachtotheologywhichalways
includesbothakindofhistorical‐criticalbiblicalexegesisaswellasahermeneutic
offaithbywhichtointerpretthefruitofthisexegesis.Thisisalsopreciselywhat
provokedthesharpestcriticismsofhisbookonJesusofNazareth.174
DogmaandBible
Thereluctanceonthepartofmanytoallowarobustinteractionofdogmaand
biblicalexegesisisoneofthegreatareasofconcernforRatzingerincontemporary
theology.175Intheefforttoarriveat“thehistoricalJesus”,heexplains,ithasbeen
172DeiVerbum,#11‐12.173Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,87‐90.174Forsomevaryingexamplesofcritiques,seeG.Lüdemann,EyesthatSeeNot:ThePopeLooksatJesus,2008);C.M.Martini,"ArdentTestimonyonJesus:OntheBookJesusofNazarethbyJosephRatzinger/BenedictXVI,"BulletinDeiVerbum84/85(2007):44;LukeJohnson,"JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,"ModernTheology24.2(2008):318.175Ratzinger,God'sWord:Scripture,Tradition,Office,91‐9.
78
thoughtnecessarybymanyexegetes,toexcludefromexegesisthehorizonof
ecclesialfaithanddogmaexpressiveofthatfaithbecauseitrepresentsan
obstructionofthe“pure”historicalvision.Thelayersofinterpretationofthefigure
ofJesusandthewholeofScriptureseemtocloudthetruthof“primitive
Christianity.”However,byeliminatingfromthediscourse,thehistorical(andfaith‐
shaped)appropriationofthetruthofthescriptures,muchofmodernscholarship
hassterilizedScripture,inRatzinger’sview.BytreatingthetextsofScriptureas
mereobjectsforhistoricalanalysis,ithasbeenmadeintoagenreincompatiblewith
itsoriginalforminsofarasitisdivorcedfromthesettingofcommunalfaithinGod’s
salvificcommunicationinhistory.Consequently,heexplains,“theBiblethathas
freeditselffromdogmahasbecomeadocumentaboutthepastand,thereby,itself
belongstothepast.”176
Inordertorectifythisdistortion,heoutlinesimportanthermeneuticalelements
fortherenewalofthemissionofbothCatholicexegesisandtheology.Whatisat
stakeforRatzinger,isnotjustapreferenceaboutwhatisabetterwaytoundertake
anacademicdiscipline.Whatisatissueisnotjustanasintraacademicdebatebut
thequestionofhowwellGod’srevelationwillcontinuetobeappropriatedinthelife
ofGod’speoplesincewhenexegesisandtheologyareexercisedinaspiritualand
ecclesialmanner,theyalsobecomeanextensionoftheveryrevelationofGodin
history.TheWordspokenbyGodthatcontinuestobeauthenticallyreceived,
reflecteduponandcommunicatedisincontinuitywiththeWordoriginallyspoken.
TheroleofthetheologianistotranslatethatWordinnewandrelevantwaysin
176Ibid.,99.
79
everyageandcultureaccordingtothelogicofrevelationitselfthathasitsrootsin
eternityandyetisalwaysorientedtowardcommunicationinhistory.Inarecent
addresstotheologiansfromaroundtheworld,Benedictexplainedtheroleofthe
theologianhighlightingthe“communicative”anddialogicalnatureofthediscipline
asitpertainstoseekingknowledgeofthelivingGodasthisisundertakeninthe
contextofecclesialfaith.Insodoingheprovidedthemwithaconcretehistorical
exemplarfortheirdisciplineinthemodernmilieu:
theworditself"theo‐logy”revealsthiscommunicativeaspectofyourwork‐‐intheologyweseektocommunicate,throughthe"logos,"whatwehaveseenandheard"(1John1:3)…[Furthermore]notheologicalsystemcansubsistifitisnotpermeatedbytheloveofitsdivine‘Object,’whichintheologymustnecessarilybe‘Subject,’whospeakstousandwithwhomweareinarelationshipoflove.ThustheologymustalwaysbenourishedbydialoguewiththedivineLogos,CreatorandRedeemer.Moreover,notheologyissuchifitisnotintegratedinthelifeandreflectionoftheChurchthroughtimeandspace.Yes,itistruethat,tobescientific,theologymustargueinarationalway,butitmustalsobefaithfultothenatureoftheecclesialfaith;centeredonGod,rootedinprayer,incommunionwiththeotherdisciplesoftheLordguaranteedbycommunionwiththeSuccessorofPeterandthewholeepiscopalcollege…ecclesialcommunionisdiachronic,andsoistheology.Thetheologianneverbeginsfromzero,butconsidersasteacherthefathersandtheologiansofthewholeChristiantradition.RootedinsacredScripture,readwiththefathersanddoctors,theologycanbeschoolofsanctity,asattestedbyBlessedJohnHenryNewman.177
RecallingNewman,andthesourceofNewman’stheologicalfruitfulnessinhis
relianceontheFathersinordertounderstandScriptureandtradition,Ratzinger
177“AddressofHisHolinessBenedictXVItoMembersoftheInternationalTheologicalCommission,”VaticanCityConsistoryHall,3December2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/december/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20101203_cti_en.html
80
modelsthatcalltotheologianstoalwaysseethemselvesasliving,thinkingand
writingincommunionwiththewholetraditionthathasprecededthem.
Again,Ratzinger’sstudyofBonaventureisformative.Itisworthrecallinghere
Bonaventure’sverystrikinginsistenceontheroleofthepatristictraditionin
understandingScripture.Indeed,BonaventuresawthewritingsoftheFathersin
somewayaspartofrevelationitselfinsofarastheyappropriatedScriptureand
communicatedtheWordofGodtotheChurchintheearliestgenerations.
Consequently,ourownappropriationoftheWordmustbedonebywayoftheir
historicalmediation.ThisinnerunityoftheFathersandtheauthentic
understandingofScripturethatcanonlybeunderstoodspirituallyistheonlymeans
bywhichthecontemporaryChurchcanbetransformedbytheWordofGod.He
quotesBonaventure,“Byhimself,mancannotcometothis(spiritual)understanding
(ofScripture).HecandothisonlythroughthosetowhomGodrevealedit,i.e.
throughthewritingsoftheSaintssuchasAugustine,Jeromeandothers.”178
RatzingerembracesBonaventure’sinsistenceontheintimatelinkbetween
ScriptureandtheongoingappropriationoftheWordinhistorybythesaints.As
soonasheexplainsBonaventure’sperspective,heimmediatelymakesuseofitin
advocatingamannerofdoingtheologytodaythatreliesonbothScriptureand
traditionexplaining,
Thismeansthatthespiritualunderstandingdoesnotarisepurelyandsimplyasapenetrationfromlettertospiritwhich,asspirit,wouldliebeyondtheworldofmerewordsandassuchcouldbegraspedonlyinindividualcases.Rather,ithasalreadyfounditsbindingrulesandevencontentinthewritingsoftheFathers.Thisunderstanding,
178Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,77‐78.Cf.,CollationesinHexameronXIX.
81
whichcannotbereachedbymanalone,was‘revealed’tothemonceandforall.179
Inaccordancewiththis“logicofrevelation”thatGodspeakshisWordfrometernity
throughhumanwordsinhistory,Ratzingeralsoassertsthenormativityofaccepted
translationsofscripture,namely,theVulgate,aswellastraditionallyaccepted
commentaryonScriptureinthepatristictraditionascomprising,insomesense,
“inspired”tradition.ThepatristicappropriationofScriptureandtheruleoffaith,
then,insomeway,areauthoritativeandassucharepartofrevelationasthey
constitutesomeofthemanyseminaoftheoneLogos.Tradition,therefore,is
conceivedofbyRatzingermuchmorebroadlyanddiverselythansimplyasthe
depositumfideiofthemagisterialteachingsofthepopesandbishops.180
ByconsideringtheFathersaspartofrevelationinsomesense,thecontemporary
theologianisurgedtoconsiderinanewlightthenatureofhisorherowntask.This
reconsideringiscentraltoRatzinger’stheologicalandpastoralconcern.Again,
recallingBonaventure,RatzingerratherstrikinglyassertsthatScriptureitself,
strictlyspeaking,istheonlyrealworkoftheology,forScriptureissimplythedirect
reflectionofSpirit‐ledwritersuponthedirectactionofGodinhistory.181Following
thispattern,theongoingworkoftheologyoughttoimitate,insomesense,the
scripturalauthors‐toreflectupontheexperienceofGodamongthefaithfulin
history.ReadingScriptureinthisnewmanner,then,becomeswhattheSecond
VaticanCouncilcalled“acolloquiuminterDeumethominemwhereinthedialogue
179Ibid.,78.180Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:264‐5.181Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,67.
82
withtheeternalGodisalwaysinthepresentforthehumansubject.”182Itis
preciselythisradicalenteringintocolloquiumwiththeWordthatconstitutesthe
truenatureoftheChurchandwhichultimatelymakessaintsofordinaryChristians.
Consequently,Ratzingerargues,theworkofthetheologianisalwayssecondaryto
theexperienceofthesaintsbecauseitisthesaintwhoexperiencesandentersinto
profoundrelationship‐dialogue‐withtheliving,speakingGod.183Toputitmore
precisely,then,thetaskofthetheologianisnottosaythingsaboutGod,buttotreat
GodastheonewhoisspeakingthroughthepeopleandeventsthatreflectHisplanof
salvation.Hewrites,
Thebeautifulvocationofthetheologian…meansmakingpresenttheWord,theWordwhocomesfromGod,theWordwhoisGod…God,inreality, is not the object but the subject of theology. The one whospeaks through theology, the speakingsubject,mustbeGodhimself.AndourspeechandthoughtsmustalwaysservetoensurethatwhatGodsays,theWordofGod,islistenedtoandfindsroomintheworld.Thus once again we find ourselves invited into this process offorfeiting our own words, this process of purification so that ourwords may be nothing but the instrument through which God canspeak,andhence,thathemaytrulybethesubjectandnottheobjectoftheology.184
RatzingerverymuchfollowsBalthasar,then,inhisfamousstatementthattheology
is tobedone in imitationof the saints, in allhumilityandobedience to theWord
that has been spoken byGod in history and always undertaken in reverence, “on
182Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,3:171.183BenedictXVI,Pope,TheYesofJesusChrist:ExercisesinFaith,HopeandLove(NewYork:Crossroads,2005),31.184Benedict,“Homily,EucharisticConcelebrationwiththeMembersoftheInternationalTheologicalCommission,”(October6,2006).Cf.,ScottHahn,CovenantandCommunion:TheBiblicalTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI,89‐90.Seealso:Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology,321.
83
bendedknee.”185 Thispostureofdoing theologyprovidesaconcretized image for
the whole of Joseph Ratzinger’s approach to reflecting upon the one mystery of
Christianfaith.Histheologyofrevelationprovidesafoundationandoffersshapeto
therestofhistheologythatwillbetakenupinsubsequentchapters.Fornow,then,
we turn and take stockof themost essential aspects of his theologyof revelation
thatis,weshallsee,expressedineveryotherareaofreflectionontheoneChristian
mystery.
V.JosephRatzinger’sDialogicalTheologyofRevelation
HavingoutlinedthecontoursofthedevelopmentofRatzinger’sowntheologyof
revelation,weturnnowtohighlightafewofthemajorthematicelementsofhis
thought.LievenBoevedescribesRatzinger’s“conceptofdynamicrevelation”thatis
the“turningofGodtowardhumanity”which“effectivelycontinuestothisday‐even
aftertheclosureofobjectiverevelation.”186The“dynamic”processoftheunveiling
oftheLogosintheactofrevelationisseenbothinthecreatedorderaswellasthe
historicalorderandsothescientist,thephilosopher,aswellasthesimplepersonof
faith,canallbereceiversoftheonerevelationofGodself.187Theessentialrole
playedbythehumansubjectintheunfoldingofrevelationintroducesanessential
markofwhatIcallthe“dialogicalstructure”ofthewholeRatzinger’stheology.The
unfoldingdialoguebetweenGodandhumanityculminatesinthepersonofJesus185HansUrsvonBalthasar,TheWordmadeFlesh(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1989),181‐209.186Benedict,GerardMannion,andL.Boeve,TheRatzingerReader:MappingaTheologicalJourney(London:T&TClark,2010),13.187Benedict,“AddressofHisHolinessBenedictXVItoMembersoftheInternationalTheologicalCommission,”VaticanCityConsistoryHall,3December,2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/december/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20101203_cti_en.html
84
Christwhoisthedefinitiveinstantiationofdivinerevelation.188TheChurch
continuestoengageinthisdialoguewiththelivingGodandsoappropriate
revelationthatis“new”intheongoingdevelopmentoftraditionthatreflectsupon
Scripture.Together,then,bothScriptureandtraditionarethe‘positive’sources
thatsimultaneouslydrawuponthe‘internalsource’oftheonerevelationthatlies
“behind”thepositivesourcesencounteredinthelifeoftheChurch.189The
consequenceofthisunderstandingofRatzingeristhatwhatisunveiledinthe
positivesourcesofrevelationdoesnotexhaustthesubstanceandcontentofthe
wholeofrevelation.Thereisalwaysa“surplus”beyondthatwhichisrevealed.
ThereisalwaysmoretotheWordthanwhattheEternalWordcommunicatesin
historical,humanwords.Thissurplusisthebasisfortheongoingdevelopmentof
doctrineinthelifeoftheChurchasexpressedintraditionaswellasintheological
reflection.ThoughthefullnessoftherevelationisgiveninthepersonofChrist,the
wayinwhichtheChurchcontinuestoappropriateand“hear”theWordinhistoryis
alwayscharacterizedastheongoingdialoguethatneverceasestoconveynew
meaning.Theongoingengaginginthedialoguethatisrevelationistheactionby
whichtheLord“makesallthingsnew”(Rev21:5)andwhichalsoaccountsforthe
possibilityof“developmentofdoctrine.”
188JosephRatzinger,OntheWaytoJesusChrist(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005),82.189Mannion,TheRatzingerReader:MappingaTheologicalJourney,286,14.Cf.Ratzinger’sessay,"TheQuestionoftheConceptofTradition:AProvisionalResponse”inRahnerandRatzinger,RevelationandTradition,78.
85
Conclusion:RevelationasHistoricallyUnfoldingDialogue
InthischapterIhaveoutlinedtheessentialcharacteristicsofRatzinger’s
theologyofrevelation.Beginningwithanexplanationoftheinfluencehisstudyof
Bonaventure’stheologyofhistoryhadonhim,Isuggestthatthisunderstandingof
theoneEternalLogosbegettingmanyseminainhumanhistoryisanorganic
metaphorforunderstandinghowitisthatrevelationunfoldsinhistoryandis
expressedinatwo‐foldwayinbothScriptureandtradition.Thisvisionof
revelationasunfoldinginadynamicwayinhistoryhelpedtoopenupanewhorizon
intheChurch’sownunderstandingofthismysteryatVaticanII.Dueinpartto
Ratzinger’sinfluence,DeiVerbumembracedthisunderstandingofrevelation“seen
basicallyasdialogue”betweenGodandhumanitythatunfoldsinhistory.This
dialogicalstructureofRatzinger’stheologyofrevelationisnecessarilyhistoricalin
character.ItiscentralintheChristianvision,forRatzinger,thatGod“doesn’tjust
dropdownfromheavenandintroducehimself.”Rather,Godmakeshimselfsmall
enoughtomeetusasapersonand“entersfullyintoanhistoricalcontextthatoffers
usawaytoapproachhim,oneinwhichheisexpectedandinwhichweareableto
receivehismessage.”190Itispreciselybecauseofthehistoricityofthemomentsof
dialogueintheunfoldingofrevelationthatRatzinger’stheologicalreflectionis
alwaysdoneinamannerattentivetotheparticularsofhistory.Foritisfromhistory
thatScriptureandtraditionemergeanditisinhistorythatthekerygmaisbeing
proclaimedatalltimesinlifeoftheChurch.Finally,themostessential
190JosephRatzingerandPeterSeewald,GodandtheWorld:BelievingandLivinginourTime:AConversationwithPeterSeewald(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2002),206.
86
hermeneuticalprincipleatworkinRatzinger’stheologyofrevelationhastodowith
whathasrecentlybeendeemed“theChristocentricshift”insomecontemporary
theologyofwhichRatzinger’sthoughtischaracteristic.191SinceChrist,theLogosof
Godmadefleshinhistory,isthefullnessoftherevelationofGod,thereisnonew
publicrevelationaftertheNewTestament.192ConsequentlyRatzingersumsuphis
ownunderstandingoftheinnerunityofthetestamentsinthisway,“TheNew
TestamentisnothingotherthantheinterpretationoftheLaw,theProphetsandthe
WritingsfoundcontainedinthestoryofJesus.”193AsthepersonofChristmakes
intelligibleallthathadbeenanticipatedabouthimintheunfoldingofsalvation
historyamongthepeopleofIsrael,sotoodoeshegiveshapetoandfulfillthe
identityofthoseintheChurchwhocomeafterhimseekingtounderstandthe
dynamicrevelationofGodinwhichtheystillparticipate.ItistoRatzinger’s
understandingofthefullnessofthisrevelation‐thepersonofJesusChrist‐thatwe
nowturninthenextchapter.
191EmerydeGaál,TheTheologyofBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift;seealsoAveryCardinalDulles,“FromRatzingertoBenedict”FirstThings160(Fall2006):24‐29.192Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,69.193Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977,53.
87
Chapter3
JesustheChrist:EternalLogosMadeLoveinHistory
Thereis“adivineplan,whichhaslongbeenkepthiddenandthatGodhimselfhasrevealedinthehistoryofsalvation.Inthefullnessoftime,thisWisdomtookona
humanFace.”194
Onthe30thofSeptember,theFeastofSt.Jerome,in2006,ayearandahalf
intohispontificate,PopeBenedictXVIsignedtheforewordtohisbookJesusof
Nazareth.195Itisstrikingandindeedunprecedentedthatapopeapproachingan
80thbirthday‐whileservingasuniversalpastorforachurchofwelloverabillion
members,andinadditiontothecountlesscommitmentsthatcomewiththatoffice,
includingdutiesofinternalecclesialgovernance,internationaldiplomacy,aswellas
asteadyflowofothervenuescallingforwrittenspeeches,homiliesandvarious
teachingsineveryaspectofChristianconcern‐thesamemantooktimeandmade
theefforttoinitiateathreevolumeseriesonthefigureofJesusofNazareth.Itisalso
worthyofnotethathemadethisofferingtotheworld,notinamagisterialmode,
butinaverypersonalway,thefruitofhislifelong“searchfortheFaceofthe
Lord.”196Withsuchaneffort,Benedictmadeitunmistakablyclearthatthefigureof
JesusChristisatthecenterofhiswholeproject,boththeologicallyandpastorally.
194Benedict,“Homily,CelebrationofFirstVesperswithUniversityStudents,”VaticanBasilica,17December2009.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20091217_vespri‐universitari_en.html.Cf.,1Cor2:7.195Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration.TranslatedbyAdrianJ.Walker.(NewYork:Doubleday,2007).196Ibid.,xxiii,citingPsalm27:8.ThesecondvolumewaspublishedinMarch2011,nearlysevenyearsintohispontificate.SeeBenedict,JesusofNazareth.PartTwo,HolyWeek:FromtheEntranceintoJerusalemtotheResurrection(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2011).
88
IsituatethisexplorationofRatzinger’sChristologyintheimmediatewakeof
anexaminationofhistheologyofdivinerevelationandbeforeanexpositionofhis
ecclesiology.ThisissobecauseforRatzinger,Christisthefulfillmentofrevelation
andyetatthesametime,heisabletobeknowntrulyonlyinthecontextofthe
believingecclesia.Inthischapter,Iwillthereforebeginbydescribinghowitisthat
Ratzinger’sChristologyflowsdirectlyfromhisunderstandingofrevelationandwill
concludewithanintroductiontotheintrinsiclinkbetweenhisChristologyand
ecclesiologysinceitispreciselyinthecontextoftheChurchthatChristisknown.
ThemiddleofthechapterwillbedevotedtohowhisChristologyischaracterizedas
anunfoldingdialogicalnarrativethatcharacterizestherelationshipbetweenGod
andhumanity.WhilethecenterofthisnarrativeistheIncarnationoftheEternal
WordinJesusChrist,weencounterthesameWordthroughwhom“allthingswere
made”(Jn1:3)increationandalsoastheWordtowardwhomallofsalvation
historytends.Withintheorderofcreation,then,Christologybecomesthelens
throughwhichwecandiscerntheultimategroundofallreality.Thismetaphysical
grounding,whenseeninconjunctionwithsalvationhistory,provestobeoneof
communicability.TheWord(Logos)throughwhomallthingsweremade,when
followingtheorderofsalvationhistory,turnsouttobetheWordthatisultimately
manifestedasloveitselfinJesus’selfgiftonthecross.Thesystematicframework
thatmakessenseofrealityintheorderofcreationasanexpressionofdivineLogos
cannotbearrivedatoutsideoftracingthedevelopmentofsalvationhistory.Andso,
inRatzinger’sthought,Christologyhasalogicalcoherencethatisintelligiblenot
simplyintherealmofpurelogicalspeculationbuthaslightshedonitbywayof
89
experienceinhistory.TheexperienceoftheWordinhistoryilluminatestheorder
ofcreationthatislogicallycoherentandwhichendsupbeingmostintelligiblenotas
logicalone,butasdia‐logic‐ascommunication.
I.TheFullnessofGod’sRevelation
InthisstudyofthecoherenceofRatzinger’sthought,weapproachhis
Christologyafterhavingexaminedhistheologyofrevelation.There,werecognized
thathisunderstandingisthatrevelationisnotstaticandabstractinitsessencebut
rather“dynamic.”197Characteristicofrevelation,asRatzingerseesit,isthatitis
unfoldinginhistoryandassuchdialogicalandnarrativeinstructure.The
culminationofthisunfoldingrevelationofGodinhistoryistheentranceintothe
narrativeofthepersonofJesusChrist.Heisthedialogue,theencounteritself
betweenGodandhumanity‐inoneperson.AsthefigureofJesusChristisseenas
thefullnessoftherevelationofGod,Christologythenbecomes,forRatzinger,the
hermeneuticalkeytothewholeoftheology.EmerydeGaálhasrecentlyhighlighted
thisChristocentricaspectofRatzinger’stheology.Intheepiloguetohisbook,he
makeshisconcludingremarksonthewholeofRatzinger’sthought:
Lifeinitsvariedabundanceisfartoopowerfultobegraspedorharnassedbyasystem.Thisisthe‘Christocentricshift.’InthissenseonewoulddoagreatinjusticetoRatzinger’stheologywereonetopressitintoaself‐contained,closedboxoftimelesstruths.Hehasalwaysavoidedsuchatemptationinhisowntheology…Butamidhumanfrailties,theWorddidindeedbecomeincarnate.Thisistheincontrovertiblerealityandtruth…OnecannotdoubtitandstillbeaChristian.198
197JoseGranados,CarlosGranados,andLuisSánchezNavarro,eds.OpeningUptheScriptures:JosephRatzingerandtheFoundationsofBiblicalInterpretation(GrandRapids,Mich.:WilliamB.EerdmansPub.Co,2008),26.198EmerydeGaálGyulai,TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2010),301.
90
ThefigureofJesusChrist,then,indeGaál’sestimationofRatzinger’sthought,is
foundationalforthewholeofChristianexperienceandforeveryaspectofauthentic
theologicalreflectionintheChristiantradition.Hegoesontosay,“Asisthecasefor
everyChristian,everytheology,everytheologian,bishoporpopeaswell,they
receivetheirtruegreatnessbybecomingsimilesorparablesforGodby
participatinginthenatural,supernaturallifeofJesusChrist,whoistheLogosand
thuspermittingtheIncarnationofGodinJesustocontinuetotheendoftime.”199
WhatmarksthedifferenceofRatzinger’stheologyinthisregardisthe
differentiationitdrawsfromthe“anthropocentricshift”thatoccurredinmany
circlesintwentiethcenturyCatholictheologythatrantheriskoftryingtomake
senseoftheChristianmysteryfromwithintheconfinesof“aCartesianegocentric
view”200thatequatesmeaningwithhumanknowledge.Rather,asdeGaálargues,
Ratzingerhasinsistedonthecentralityofthe“Christianhermeneuticsofsalvation
history.”201Atthecenterofthishistory,ofthisnarrative,isthecharacterofJesus
Christ.
ForRatzinger,thecentralityofChristisevidentpreciselybecauseofthe
dialogicalnatureofthewholeofhistheology.HeexplainsthatChristologyisthe
“newsubjectandfoundationofalltheology”202becauseinChrist,notonlyhasGod
spokentohumanitybuthumanityisnowabletoenterintoanewsubjectivitywith
respecttoGod‐tospeakasanew“I.”RatzingerseesSt.Paul’sexperienceas
199Ibid.200Ibid.,300201Ibid.202JosephRatzinger,TheNatureandMissionofTheology:EssaystoOrientTheologyinToday'sDebates(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1995),50.
91
paradigmaticofthisnewsubjectivity,recallingtheApostle’sdeclarationofhisnew
identity:“itisnolongerIwholive,butChristwholivesinme”(Gal2:20).Thiswas
notonlyPaul’sexperience,butisratherthefundamentalexperienceofall
Christians,andinvolvesadyingoftheold“I”that“ceasestobeanautonomous
subjectstandinginitself.Itissnatchedawayfromitselfandisfittedintoanew
subject.The‘I’isnotsimplysubmerged,butitmustreallyreleaseitsgriponitselfin
ordertothenreceiveitselfanewtogetherwithagreater‘I’.”203Thereis,then,atthe
heartofChristianidentity,theneedtoundergotransformationalconversioninlight
oftheencounterwiththepersonofChrist.TheevangelistJohnrecountsJesus’own
wordstohisdisciples:“Unlessagrainofwheatfallstothegroundanddies,it
remainsjustagrainofwheat;butifitdies,itproducesmuchfruit”(12:24).They
willcometoseetheperfectinstanceoftheonewhodiesandbearsmuchfruitand
comethentolearnhowtheycandothesameintheirownlivesinunionwithandin
imitationofhim.Thisnewfruitthatcanbeproducedamongthefaithfulcomesasa
resultoftheunionwithChristandbeingdrawnintothenewsubjectivityofChrist.
Thereisanecessarydyingoftheoldhumanselftobecomealiveagainasanew“I”
inChrist.ThisrecognitionthatGodhasspokentohumanityinChristastheeternal
“I,”andthatbywayofrelationshipwithChrist,wecanspeakinturntoGodina
newlyacquiredsubjectivity,isthebasisofRatzinger’sunderstandingofthewholeof
theChristianmystery.
Fromtheviewofthewholenarrativewhichculminatesinthelife,deathand
ResurrectionofJesus,Ratzinger’smethodoftheologicalreflectioncanthenlook
203Ibid.,51.
92
backonthewholeofthenarrative,goingsteadilybackoversalvationhistoryinthe
presenceoftheRisenLordinordertounderstanditanewinlightofthesaving
experienceinChrist.WemightcharacterizethisapproachtoChristologyas“dia‐
logical”inthatitsveryshapeisfollowingthespeechofGodandhumanity’s
responsethroughouthistory.ThisdialoguebetweenGodandhumanity
subsequentlyconstitutesanarrativeofitsownthroughoutsalvationhistory.
Ultimately,thepersonofChristhimselfistheperfectionandfullnessofthisdialogue
bothasGodspeakingtohumanityandhumanityrespondingtoGod.204
TheHistoricalJesusAccessedThroughaHermeneuticofFaith
Ratzingerseesthatasdivinerevelationunfoldsinhistory,itreachesits
fullnessinthefigureofJesusofNazareth.Asheishistorical,thefigureofJesusis
rightlyapproachedbythemethodofhistoricalanalysis.Butanhistoricalapproach
divorcedfromtheperspectiveoffaithisnotsufficientfortrueknowledgeofhim.In
theForewordtohissecondvolumeofJesusofNazareth,Benedictnoteshis
satisfactionthatsincethepublicationofhisfirstvolume,thereseemstobean
increasinglyrobustscholarlydiscourseonthequestionofallowingforatheological
perspectiveonexegeticalmethodology.Hesaysthataftertwohundredyearsof
historicalcriticalexegesis,its“essentialfruit”hasalreadybeenproduced.However,
ifhistorical‐criticalexegesishopestoremainfruitfulandnot“exhaust”itself,itmust
“takeamethodologicalstepforwardandseeitselfonceagainasatheological
204Ratzingeralternatesbetweenthesetwoapproacheswhenhedescribesthediscoveryofthe“Godofthephilosophers”andthe“Godofbiblicalfaith”inIntroductiontoChristianity(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004),116‐150.ThetensionofthesetwoapproacheswasalsothetopicoftheinaugurallecturehegaveuponhisarrivalattheUniversityofBonnin1959.J.Ratzinger,DerGottDesGlaubensUndDerGottDerPhilosophen,(München:Schnell&Steiner:1960),70.
93
discipline,withoutabandoningitshistoricalcharacter.”205Developingafamiliar
themeinhistheologicalvision,buildingonafocusonbiblicalexegesisandfrom
theremovingtoconstructionoftheologicalperspective,heassertsthatscholarly
exegesis“mustrecognizethataproperlydevelopedfaith‐hermeneuticis
appropriatetothetextandcanbecombinedwithahistoricalhermeneutic,awareof
itslimits,soastoformamethodologicalwhole.”206ForRatzinger,Scripturecannot
beunderstoodoutsideofthis“methodologicalwhole”thatkeepsintensionthe
faith‐hermeneuticaswellasthehistoricalhermeneutic.Together,theyformone
authenticperspectiveonthenatureandsubstanceofrevelation’stwoexpressions
inScriptureandtradition.Butwhatofthis“faith‐hermeneutic”?Whatconstitutes
itsshape?ForRatzinger,thisapproachalwaysflowsfromtheecclesialcontextin
whichGodspeaksandinwhichhespokedefinitivelyinthepersonofJesusChrist.
This“faith‐hermeneutic”thatRatzingerdescribesthatisalwaysecclesialin
shape,isoutlinedinDeiVerbum#12:
“sinceHolyScripturemustbereadandinterpretedinthesacredspiritinwhichitwaswritten,nolessseriousattentionmustbegiventothecontentandunityofthewholeofScriptureifthemeaningofthesacredtextsistobecorrectlyworkedout.ThelivingtraditionofthewholeChurchmustbetakenintoaccountalongwiththeharmonywhichexistsbetweenelementsofthefaith.
ThisbecomesoneofthemajormotifsofRatzinger’stheologicalandpastoralcareer.
OnlyinthisecclesialcontextcanJesusChristbeknown‐inthecontextofencounter
withhim,alongwithotherswhoseekhisface‐together,inthe“collectiveI”ofthe
205Benedict,JesusofNazareth,PartTwo,xiv.206Ibid.,xv.
94
Church.207ThevisionoftheunionofGodandhumanityfoundinChrist,therefore,is
foraRatzinger,the“resultofadialogue,theexpressionofahearing,receivingand
answeringthatguidesmanthroughtheexchangesof‘I’and‘You’tothe‘We’ofthose
whoallbelieveinthesameway.”208Thenatureofthisinnerrelationshipof
ecclesiologyandChristologyinRatzinger’stheologywillbetakenupattheendof
thischapterasabridgetothenextchapteronthedialogicalnatureoftheChurch.In
themeantime,wedrawclosertoexaminetheparticularshapeofthisChristological
andecclesiologicalhermeneuticoffaithsocentraltoRatzinger’smethodology.
ChristandtheScandalofParticularity
Ratzinger’sexpositionofthefaith“ofthosewhoallbelieveinthesameway”
inthisecclesialandChristologicalunity,isofcoursenotuniversallyappealing.The
visionofapprehendingtheunityofGodandhumanityintermsofadialogue
initiated“inthebeginning”andfulfilledinthepersonofJesus,hasthecapacityto
drawthereaderinandthenimmediatelystopupshortoncetheconsequencesof
acceptingthisnarrativebecomeclear.Asdisarmingastheinvitationcanseem,
thereisstillreasonforresistancetotheinvitation.Thoughtheverystructureof
dialogueisnecessarily“open”tothosewhoseektoenterintoit,itisalso,byits
natureparticularandinthatsensemanifestsadimensionofexclusivity.The
believerisinvitedtotakepartinthisdialogue,thisnarrative,withitsownhistory,
characters,modesofinterpretation,etc.Itinvolvesenteringintoa“hermeneutical
circle”withitsownboundaries.Hencetheresistanceincontemporarycultureto207ForanelaborationonthisecclesialhermeneuticofRatzinger,seeMaximilianHeinrichHeim,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology:FundamentalsofEcclesiologywithReferencetoLumenGentium(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2007),147ff.208Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,90.
95
theChristocentrismofonelikeRatzingerbecomesevident.Thereasonforthe
resistanceisthatunderneaththeinvitationisaparticularproposal,evenpromise,of
salvationforallthosewhoarewillingtosay“yes”toit.Theparticularityofthis
promiseprovestobeastumblingblockinthecontemporarycontextofreligious
pluralismandthegeneral“dictatorshipofrelativism”thatRatzingerhassofamously
diagnosedincontemporarywesternculture.209Beforegivinganexpositionofthe
structureofthisparticularnarrative,wepausetoacknowledgethenatureofthe
resistancetoitsconsequencesasvariousscholarshaverespondedtoRatzinger’s
articulationofit.
PopeBenedict’sportrayaloftheJesusoftheGospelsinJesusofNazarethis
bothattractiveandalsoprovidesastumblingblockforcontemporaryaudiences
accustomedtoapostureof“objectivity”asthemodusoperandiinareligiously
pluralisticcontext.TheChristologicalhingeuponwhichthisvisionturnsisgivena
specialclarityinthecourseofthedialogueheentersintowithRabbiJacob
Neusner.210IntriguedbyNeusner’sconcertedattempttolookuponthefigureof
JesusfromathoroughlyJewishperspective,211Benedictmakesuseofthefruitofhis
friend’scontemplationandthenletsitshedlightuponhisownlong“searchforthe
faceofGod”inChrist.Therabbiandthepopeseeagreatdealincommonregarding209Foranin‐deptharticulationofRatzinger’sunderstandingofthedangerofthisrelativism,seeJosephCardinalRatzinger,TruthandTolerance:ChristianBeliefandWorldReligions(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004).SeealsohisfamoushomilyattheconclaveofcardinalsgatheredtoelectJohnPaulII’ssuccessor:“HomilyofHisEminenceCard.JosephRatzinger,DeanoftheCollegeofCardinals,”VaticanBasillica18April2005.http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily‐pro‐eligendo‐pontifice_20050418_en.html.210Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,103‐127.211JacobNeusner,ARabbiTalkswithJesus:AnIntermillennial,InterfaithExchange(NewYork:Doubleday,1993);NeusnercontinuedthedialoguewithBenedictwithasimultaneousreleaseofhisresponsetoJesusofNazareth:J.Neusner,"RenewingReligiousDisputationinQuestofTheologicalTruth:InDialoguewithBenedictXVI'sJesusofNazareth,"Communio34.2(2007).
96
thecontinuityofthefigureofJesuswithinthetraditionofthepeopleofIsrael,butit
isespeciallyintheplacewheretheydepartthatBenedictfindsconfirmation
regardingtheunsettlingnatureoftheChristianproclamationofthetrueidentityof
JesusofNazareth.BenedictrelateshowNeusnerseesclaimsofdivinitybyJesus,not
onlyinthemoredirectstatementsabouttheFatherandhimbeing“one”(e.g.,Jn
10:30;17:21),butevenwithintheSermonontheMountwhichmanywouldpointto
astheleastcontroversialandmostuniversallyappealingofJesus’teachings.Rabbi
NeusnerpointstothisclaimtodivinitywithintheSermonbyrecallingthe
BabylonianTalmudinwhichRabbiSimelaianalyzesthesynthesisofthelawfrom
the613commandmentsgiventoMosesandtheirsteadyconsolidationfromDavid
toIsaiahtoHabakuk,etc.ThenNeusner,inthisdialogueacrosscenturies,“asks”
SimelaihowJesusfitsintothisunderstandingofthelaw.Throughthecourseofthis
“dialogue”NeusnerconcludesthatJesustookawaynothingfromthelawandadded
onlyhimselftoit.212Thatistosay,JesusisconsistentwiththetraditionofIsraelup
tohisinclusionofhimselfasthefulfillmentofthelawandthereforeinidentification
withGodhimself.
ThishonestexchangewithaJewishfriendandpartnerindialogueisheldby
Benedictasamodeloftakingseriouslyeachtraditionfromwithinandaccordingto
itsownsourcesofrevelationandthenlettingthedialogueunfoldwithoutfearor
manipulationfromthatpoint,evenifitendsupinultimatedisagreementabout
interpretiveconclusions.Atthecenterofthisdialogueisthat“word”ofGod,Jesus
212Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,105.Cf.J.Neusner,TheRabbiTalkswithJesus,107‐108.
97
ofNazareth,whobothestablishesabridgetodialoguebeyondtheChurchandalsoa
stumblingblockfortotalagreementwithit.Thissamedynamicisincreasinglyat
workincontemporaryculture,thegreatertheawarenessofreligiouspluralism
becomes.ForBenedict,thisecumenicalexchangebetweentwoclear‐sightedand
strongbelievershonestabouttheirdifferentbeliefsaboutthepersonofJesusisan
especiallyfruitfulmomentofdialogue.213
ThoughtheultimatedisagreementontheidentityofJesusisobviousinthe
contextofChristian‐Jewishdialogue,italsobecomesproblematicwithinChristian
circlesaswell.JohnHaught,forexample,grappleswiththe“allegedfinalityof
Christianrevelation”214consistentlyheldintheChristiantradition.Giventhe
pluralismoftoday,thereemergesaproblemwiththedialogicaltheologyofonelike
JosephRatzinger.215Preciselybecausehepositsamorepersonalandevenintimate
portrayalofGod’srevelationinChrist,thereisaspecificitytobegrappledwith.If
theclaimsweremoregeneralandmorephilosophical,thisdifficultywould
dissipate.PreciselybecauseRatzingertakesanarrativeapproachtotheology,there
isaneedtofollowthespecificityoftheonestorybeingtoldandultimatelytobe
confrontedwiththemainprotagonistofthestorywhodemandsaresponseand
whocannotberelegatedtothesidelinesofoneamongmanycharacters.The
difficultyentailedbytheChristocentrismoftheChurch’steachingonrevelationand
213Ibid.214JohnF.Haught,MysteryandPromise:ATheologyofRevelation(Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress,1993).215ForansurveyofsomeoftheresponsestoJesusofNazareth,seeRolandDeines,“Canthe'Real'JesusbeIdentifiedwiththeHistoricalJesus?AReviewofthePope'sChallengetoBiblicalScholarshipandtheVariousReactionsitProvoked”Didaskalia,2009,39.1,[Note(s):11‐46,5‐6[37p.].
98
thecontemporarybackdropofreligiouspluralismbecameabundantlyclearinthe
eruptionafterthepublicationbytheCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith,of
theDeclarationentitled,“DominusIesus:OntheUnicityandSalvificUniversalityof
JesusChristandtheChurch,”ontheSolemnityoftheTransfigurationintheJubilee
Year,2000.216
AnervewascertainlytouchedinthewakeofthisdocumentfromtheCDF,
headedatthetimebyCardinalRatzinger.TheinsistenceontheunicityofChristand
theChurchinthedivineplanofsalvationhistorystruckachordofdissonanceinthe
contemporaryintellectualculturesoconditionedbythistimetothelandscapeof
religiouspluralism.ButRatzinger’sChristologythatcentersontheLogosasaway
ofinterpretingtheChristianmysteriesintermsofdialogueandanunfolding
narrativeoftherelationshipbetweenGodandtheworld,isvitaltokeepinmindin
readingDominusIesus.TheChurchherselfrecognizestheongoingneedinhistoryto
continuetocontemplatethemysteryoftheWordspokeninChrist.TheChurch
doesnotconsiderherselfthe“possessorofthemonopoly”ontruth.Atthesame
time,theChristianfaithveryplainlyhasbelievedfromtheverybeginning,thatGod
spokeuniquelyanddefinitivelyhisWordinJesusChrist.Assuch,theChurchherself
standsinhumilitybeforethismysteryalongwiththerestofhumanity,tryingtobe
receptivetolisteningtowhatthisWordsaysaboutwhoGodreallyisandwhat
humanityisreallycapableof.Thislisteningiseverunfoldingintheauthentic
Christianvisionanditischaracterizedbythatpostureofhumblelisteningand
216SicEtNon:EncounteringDominusIesus,EditedbyStephenJ.Pope,CharlesHefling.(Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,2002).
99
receiving.TorelativizethisWordspokenasequivalenttomanyotherwordsin
humanhistory,isactuallyarefusaltostandinhumilitybeforethemysterythatGod
hasspokenthefullnessofhimselfonceandforallinJesusChrist.Holdingtothe
truthofthismystery,theChurchactuallyholdstothepossibilityofunityamongall
peoplespreciselybecauseoftheparticularityofthisWordspokenonce,infullness,
inhistory.Indeed,thisdeclarationoftheCDFofferedthirtyfiveyearsafterthe
Councildrawsuponconciliarteachinginitsconclusionindicatingthatonlyby
holdingfasttothefaithoftheChurch,asDignitatisHumanaeurges,cantheChurch
beasourceforunityintheworldamongallpeople.217Atthecenterofthisfaithof
theChurchistherevelationofChristwhois“’thetruelodestar’inhistoryforall
humanity,”asJohnPaulIIputitinFidesetRatio.218Havingtakennoteofthe
“scandal”oftheparticularityofRatzinger’sChristology,weturnnowtothe
differencetheunicityofChristmakesinunderstandingbothGodandhumanityin
histheology.
ChristDeterminingTheologyandAnthropology
Ratzinger’sChristologysimultaneouslyshapeshistheologyofGodandhis
theologicalanthropology.BothanewunderstandingofGodandanew
understandingofhumanityemergeasonefollowsthenarrativethathasJesusChrist
asthecentralcharacter.Astheoft‐quotedpassagefromGaudiumetSpesputsit,
“Christ,thenewAdam,intheveryrevelationofthemysteryoftheFatherandofhis
217DominusIesus#23.Cf.,DignitatisHumanae,#1.218Ibid.,#23.Cf.,FidesetRatio,#15.
100
love,fullyrevealshumanitytoitselfandbringstolightitsveryhighcalling.”219Not
onlyishumanityreconceivedinlightofChrist,butsoistheGodhead.Becauseofthe
experienceofChrist,Godcomestobeunderstood,inRatzinger’sview,“notonlyas
logosbutalsoasdialogos,notonlyideaandmeaningbutspeechandwordinthe
reciprocalexchangesofpartnersinconversation.”220Henotesthatthisrevelatory
anddialogicalviewofGod,whocommunicateshimself,radicallychallengesthe
ancientGreekphilosophicalunderstandingofreality.Assuch,Godandallbeingthat
flowsfromGod’screativewillistobeunderstoodanewasperfectednotinstatic
unity,simplicity,immutability,andsoon.Rather,theperfectionattributedtoGod
comestobere‐interpretedinfundamentallydynamic,relationalterms.Godcomes
tobeknownastheOnewhospeaksandwho,inHisspeaking,showshimselftobe
notonlycreative,intelligentandintelligiblebutalsoessentiallycommunicativeand
loving.
AnewanthropologyisgiveninRatzinger’sChristocentricvisionaswell.When
hetreatsthequestionofGodingeneralinhisIntroductiontoChristianity,henotes
thatthequestioncanbeapproachedbyquestionsofspeculativephilosophythrough
thethemesofbeingandtruth221andsoon,butalsoexistentiallyaccordingtothe
themeofthehumanexperienceofloneliness.Asthe“I”ofthepersonexperiences
longingforthe“you”ofanother,thelongingforrelationshipisfulfilledonly
partially,heexplains,whenthe“you“isanotherhumanperson.Butthesatisfaction
219VaticanCouncil(2nd:1962‐65),VaticanCouncilII:TheBasicSixteenDocuments:Constitutions,Decrees,Declarations(Northport,NY:Costello;DominicanPublications,1996),“GaudiumetSpes”#22,185.220Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,183.221Ibid.,106.
101
ofthislongingoccursonlywhen“acalltotheabsolute‘You’thatreallydescends
intothedepthsofone’sown‘I’”222isexperiencedandrespondedto.Jesusistheone,
inRatzinger’sChristologicalanthropology,whosimultaneouslyshowshumanity
whatahumanresponsetothelongingforthe“absoluteYou”lookslikeandhowthe
absolute“I”speaksinturntohumanitywholongstobedrawnoutoftheexperience
oflonelinessintorelationship.Thehumanpersonisfulfilledonlywhenentering
intothehuman‐divine,I‐Thoudialogue.Thisencountermakespossiblethe
discoveryofthefullnessoflovethathasasitsperfectpatternthedialoguethatis
loveoftheFatherandtheSon,unitedbytheHolySpirit.Thehumanpersonis
createdforparticipationinthissamedialogue.Allotherhumanrelationshipsare
perfectedwhenflowingfromthisTrinitarianpatternofdialogue.Thefigureof
Christ,then,opensupnewhorizonsbothforthetheologyofGodandalsoofthe
humanperson.Inthissense,Ratzinger’sChristologysetsthestageforaprofound
personalismthatcanshapeourunderstandingofChristiananthropology.Centralto
thisChristologicalanthropologyofRatzingeristheinsistencethatsinceeternityhas
enteredintohistoryinJesusChrist,thehumanpersonlivinginhistoryalwayshas
hisorherdestinylyingaheadineternityandthisdestinyisfulfilledinbeingdrawn
intorelationshipwiththatsameJesusChrist.Thehumanperson,then,seenthrough
aChristologicalhermeneutic,isalwaysbothhistoricalandtranscendentinnature
andinfulfillment.
222Ibid.
102
II.ChristUnitingFaithandHistory
ThroughoutthecourseofthetheologicalexplorationsofJosephRatzinger,
thanksespeciallytohisstudyofSt.Bonaventure,aconstantmotifisthatofJesus
Christasthecenterofhistory.223Allofsalvationhistorythatprecededhimwas
leadinguptohimandallthatcomesafterhim,inthelifeoftheChurch,islivedout
inreferencetohimasthefullnessoftheChurch’sidentityandasthefulfillmentof
humanhistory.AshewouldlaterbegintheChristologysectionofhisIntroduction
toChristianity,RatzingerdescribesChristasthe“centralanddecisivepointofall
humanhistory.”224JesusChrististhelocusparexcellenceoftheencounterofthe
eternalwiththetemporal.Theredemptionofallhistoryismadepossiblethanks
onlytothefactoftheentryofthedivineintohumancontingency.Furthermore,
whenitcomestothelifeoftheChurchandtheongoingstruggletofindthepathto
ongoingrenewal,theshapeofthatpathisalwaysdeterminedbythequalityofthe
encounterofeveryperson,fromeveryage,withthepersonofJesus.
AstheseencounterswithChristhappeninthecontextoftheecclesia,sotoo
dothedescriptionsofJesusastheChristemergefromtheecclesialcommunityin
theformofvarioussymbolafidei.Theprofessionofthesymboloffaithonthepart
oftheecclesialcommunityisthewayinwhichthecommunityremindsitselfatany
givenmomentwithinhistorywhotheyare,fromwhomtheyhavecomeandto
whomtheyaregoing.Atthecenterofthisprofessionistheacknowledgementofthe
personofJesusChristandtheworkheaccomplishesinredeemingallofhumanity.
223JosephRatzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure(Chicago,IL:FranciscanHeraldPress,1989),143‐148.224Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,193.
103
ThestructureofthewholeofRatzinger’sIntroductiontoChristianityisthe
frameworkoftheApostles’Creed.Whilehisexpositionofthemeaningofthe
differentarticlesoffaithisinnovativeandstruckanimmediatechordof
freshness,225itistellingthatthemannerinwhichthisexpositionunfoldsisnot
original,butrathertraditionalandecclesialinthatitproceedsdeliberatelyfrom
withintheframeworkoftheancient,establishedboundariesofthesettleddogmatic
articulationofthefaithinthesymbolum.226Fromwithinthisframework,however,
hearticulatesthemeaningofthearticlesoffaithindialoguewiththequestionsof
hiscontemporaries.ByusingtheApostles’Creed,Ratzingerisabletoholdin
tensionthedoctrineofChristthatavoidsthesimplisticextremesof,ontheone
hand,“thereductionofChristologytohistoryandontheother,abandoninghistory
asirrelevanttofaith.”227ThomasRauschexplainsthedynamicsherebetween
Ratzingerandhismaininterlocutors:“Thefirstapproach[reducingChristologyto
history],symbolizedbyHarnack,purifiesthefaithofdoctrineandcreed,makingthe
reconstructionofthehistoricalJesusdeterminativeforChristology.Theother,
symbolizedbyBultmann,makesfaithintheChristaloneimportant”whilethe
importanceofthehistoricityofthepersonofJesusChristfades.228Harnackand
BultmannareindicatedattimesinRatzinger’stheologyasrepresentativeoftwo
trajectoriesinmoderntheologythatgrapplewiththequestionoffaithandhistory
225EmerydeGaálcallsita“twentiethcenturyclassic”andthatitwasreceivedassuchwithgreatenthusiasmwhenitwasfirstpublished.DeGaál,TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift,129‐143.226Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,82‐102.227Ibid.,198.228ThomasP.Rausch,WhoisJesus?:AnIntroductiontoChristology(Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress,2003),4.
104
bothofwhichendupproceedinginwaysthattruncatethefullnessoftheChristian
mystery.ThereisasenseinRatzinger’sownself‐understandingoftheneedto
standinthebreechcreatedbythesetwomodernapproachestotheologyinorderto
achieveacertainsynthesisthatholdsintensionthenecessityoftheperspectiveof
faithandtheimportanceofhistorywithinthatsameperspective.229Thisisperhaps
themostsignificantmarkofdivisionwithincontemporaryChristology,namelythe
apparentmutualexclusionofthe“ChristoffaithandtheJesusofhistory.”Onthe
onehand,asthechallengeofhistoricalcriticismbecamestrongerinmodern
scholarship,historicistexegetessawtheperspectiveoffaithobscuringthequestfor
thehistoricalandtherefore,the‘real’Jesus.Ontheotherhand,asthefigureofJesus
becamemoreandmorestrippedofvitalityunderthescalpelofsomehistorical‐
criticalmethods,otherswerecompelledtopositChristasmoreofastrictlyspiritual
figurethatatleastwouldmeetsomeoftheneedsofthecontemporaryexistential
searchforGod.Yetthemorethesetrajectoriesdeveloped,thelessfeasibleit
seemedtoeverreachapointofreconcilingthemintooneperson,JesustheChrist.
ASpiritualChristology
Ratzingerconsciouslywalksthelinebetweenthesetwodivisionsattempting
againandagaintorespondtothedemandsofeachsideandthenbringtheminto
dialoguewithoneanother.Ontheonehand,intheprefacetoBeholdthePierced
One,Ratzingerindicatestheneedthatexistsfora“spiritualChristology”in
contemporarytheology.Hecomparesthecontemporaryneedtotheneedseenalso
bytheThirdCouncilofConstantinopleconcludedin681thatsought,aftercenturies
229DeGaál,TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift,140.
105
ofstruggletodefineChristologicaldoctrine,tosituatethemysteryofChristback
intothespiritualcontextthatmakeshimaccessibletohiscontemporary
followers.230TheChalcedonianassertionthatChristisbothfullyhumanandfully
divinedidnotadequatelyaccountforthehowitisthatthetwonaturescoexistin
oneperson,Ratzingerexplains.TwocenturiesafterChalcedon,questionsaboutthe
relationshipbetweenthehumananddivinenaturesofChristpersisted.Intheface
ofthequestionofthewillofChrist,RatzingerrecallstheThirdCouncilof
Constantinoplethattaught,
Weproclaimequallytwonaturalvolitionsorwillsinhimandtwonaturalprinciplesofactionwhichundergonodivision,nochange,nopartition,noconfusion,inaccordancewiththeteachingoftheholyfathers.Andthetwonaturalwillsnotinopposition,astheimpioushereticssaid,farfromit,buthishumanwillfollowing,andnotresistingorstruggling,ratherinfactsubjecttohisdivineandallpowerfulwill.231
ThefullyhumanwillofJesus,then,isfulfilledandperfectedasitislivedoutin
obedientialrelationshiptothedivinewill.Forthisreason,Ratzingerfocusesonthe
“spiritual”dimensionofChristologythatalonehasthecapacitytoindicatethe
importanceofJesus’ownspirituallifethatsoughtonlytodothewillofhisFather.
RatzingerexplainsthatcontemplationofthefigureofJesusleadsonetothe
recognitionthatatthecoreofhispersonalityisthefruitfultensionofhis
communionwiththeFatherandhisdesiretobeobedienttoHimoutofloveforand
trustofHim.FocusingonJesus’prayerallowsthecontemporaryaudiencetobe
drawnintothesamedynamicofcomingtofindthefullnessofhumanityinloving230Ratzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne:AnApproachtoaSpiritualChristology(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1986),9.231JacquesDupuisandJosefNeusner,TheChristianFaithintheDoctrinalDocumentsoftheCatholicChurch(NewYork:AlbaHouse,1996),1006.Cf.,DS556/246.
106
andtrustingobediencetotheFather.ForRatzinger,whilemuchoftherecent
historyofmodernChristologyhadbeendevotedtoquestionsofthenatureofthe
hypostaticunion,theknowledgeandwillofChrist,etc.,anewawakeninghas
emergedthathashadledtheologianstorealizethatasimportantasthese
ontologicalandepistemologicalquestionsmaybe,focusingonthemattheexpense
ofthespiritualdimensionofChrist’smostbasicidentitycanresultingivinga
skewedvisionofthetotalityoftheChristianmystery‐bothinhisrelationshiptothe
FatherandSpiritandinhisrelationshiptotherestofhumanity.Ratzinger
perceivesinhisowntimetheneedforarenewedChristologythat,whiletaking
seriouslythecontemporaryissuesoftheday,neverletsthespiritualrealityof
Christ’sidentityandworkbeobscured.
Ontheotherhand,whileitisessentialtosituateauthenticChristologyina
spiritualcontext,itmustnotbecomemerely“spiritualized”either.Forthisreason,
RatzingerhighlightstheimportanceofthehistoricityofChrist.Whileitcanbeeasy
togetlostinvariousintricaciesofdifferentaspectsoftheChristological
controversiesoverthecenturies,itisessentialthatthemostfundamentalmystery
notbeobscured,whichisthatGodhasenteredintohumanhistoryinorderto
redeemitfromwithinhistory.Withthesimultaneousnewemphasisonthe
importanceofhistory,Ratzingersawthatonlybytakinghumanhistoryseriously,is
anauthenticallyspiritualtheologymadepossible.Thequestionoftherelationship
betweenthespiritualandthehistoricalbecomesespeciallypoignantwhenitcomes
totheareaofbiblicalexegesis.
Ratzingerrejectsattemptsatexegesisthatbecomedetachedfromhistory
107
andengagethegospelsonlyasameanstowardspiritualinsightormeaning.InJesus
ofNazareth,hedismisses,forexample,whathecallsthetheoryoftheGospelofJohn
asa“Jesuspoem”thatisultimatelydetachedfromhistoricalreality.Hedoessoon
thegroundsofhisinsistenceonthehistoricityofthesalvifickerygmaofallthe
gospels."Afaiththatdiscardshistoryinthismannerreallyturnsinto'Gnosticism.'
Itleavesflesh,incarnation‐justwhattruehistoryis‐behind."232IfJesusisnotthe
EternalWordwhohasdescendedfromaboveandreallymadeknownintheflesh,in
history,thereisultimatelynospiritualmeaningandefficacyinhim,forRatzinger.It
ispreciselythefactthattheEternalLogosthatendsupbeingexpressedinhistoryas
sarxinJesusChristthatmakesthehopeofsalvationwithinhistoryreal.233InChrist,
theLogosthathadbeenunderstoodastheprincipleofcoherenceforallofcreation,
isnowseenasaperson‐theLogosmadeflesh,manifestedinlove.
Whatmakespossiblethisunionoftheperspectivesoffaithandhistoricityis
preciselythefactthathistoryiscreatedthroughtheeternalLogosandthatthesame
Logoscontinuestobespokenwithinhistory.InVerbumDomini,Benedictrecalls
Origen’sdescriptionoftheChristologyoftheWordastheLogoshavingbeen
“abbreviated.”234ThisabbreviationmakestheEternalWord“shorter”inthatithas
becomehistorical,inordertobeapprehendedbyhumanity.AsBenedicthimself
putitinaChristmashomily,“theeternalwordbecamesmall–smallenoughtofit
232Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,228.233Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,193‐4.234Benedict,VerbumDomini,#12.CitingaGreektranslationoftheprophetIsaiahthatwasthentakenupbySt.Paul,(Is10:23;Rom9:28):“HoLogospachynetai(or:brachynetai)”.Cf.Origen,PeriArchon,I,2,8:SC,127‐129.
108
intoamanger.Hebecameachild,sothattheWordcouldbegraspedbyus.”235This
istheclassickindofBenedict‐ineformulationthatisstartlinginitstendernessand
pastoralsensitivity,drawingthesuspiciouscontemporaryaudienceintoahighly
intimateencounter‐thekindofencounterforwhichthecontemporarypersonlongs.
Thisconfrontationwiththeabbreviatedwordopensupthepossibilityofakindof
re‐entryintothedramaofsalvationhistoryinthatbecauseofthisunexpectedtwist
inthenarrative,auniversalaudiencecantakenoteandconsiderparticipationfrom
afreshperspective.SuchisthemodeofRatzinger’swritingandpreachingwhich
seekstoopenupnewentrancesforacontemporaryaudienceintotheoneunfolding
narrativeofsalvation.236
TheUnfoldingoftheMeaningofLogos
TakingScriptureastheprimarysourcefortheology,hisowntheology
followsthatbasicformofgradualunfoldingoftheplot,keepingthecharacters
centralandbuildingatensioninthelistenerortheaudiencethatdrawshimorher
intotheinnerdynamicofthestory.237WithintheI‐Thoustructureofhisthought,
RatzingerrepeatedlydescribestheChristianstoryasGod“comingto”humanity,
ultimatelyinthepersonofJesusChrist.Inastrikingexampleofthisinarecent
work,BenedictexplainsthegospelnarrativethatconcludeswiththeAscensionof
235Ibid.Cf.Benedict,“SolemnityoftheNativityoftheLord:HomilyofHisHolinessBenedictXVI,”St.Peter’sBasillica,24December2006.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20061224_christmas_en.html236JosephRatzinger,DogmaandPreaching:ApplyingChristianDoctrinetoDai;yLife.TranslatedbyMichaelMiller(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2011).237ItisworthrecallingatthispointtheimportanceofhisstudyofBonaventure’stheoryofthemanyseminaoftheoneLogosbeingplantedthroughouthumanhistoryasGod’swayofrevealingHimselfandhowthefullnessofthisplantingoftheseminaoccurswhentheLogositself,intheflesh,isplantedinhumanhistoryandthusbecomesthecenterofthathistory.
109
JesustotherighthandoftheFatherasanapparent“goingaway”whichinactual
factisthemeansbywhichhewill“alwaysremain”withhumanity.Itisforthis
reasonthatuponhisAscension,uponhis“goingaway,”thedisciplescanbe
simultaneously“filledwithjoy.”238TheongoingpresenceinhistoryofChrist,the
centralcharacterofthisnarrative,ismadepossiblepreciselybecauseofthefactthat
heistheeternaldivinepersonwhohastakenontemporal,historicalhumannature.
ThisunionofdivinityandhumanityinJesusofNazarethiswhatmakesitpossible
forhumanitytobedrawnupintoeternitywhileatthesametimemakinghis
presenceinhistoryalastingone.
InRatzinger’sthought,notonlyisthedramaitselfofsalvationhistory
unfolding,butthetheologicalunderstandingofthishistoryisalsounfoldinginits
ownkindofdramawithinadrama.Thewholeofhistheologyismanifested
followingthepatternofnarrative,ratherthanpropositionalandthereforestatic,
assertionofargumentsintheformofpropositionsandmereideas.Thetruthofthe
EternalLogoscontinuestobeappropriatedinhistoryinthelifeoftheChurch.Ina
crucialway,weseeRatzingerfollowa“narrative”inthehistoryofideasinwhicha
developmentoftheunderstandingofterminologyintheChristiantraditionis
observed.Thedevelopmentoftheunderstandingoftheterm,Logos,isofspecial
importancehere.InakeypassageinhisIntroductiontoChristianity,Ratzinger
producesabriefetymologyofthetermasithasbeenappropriatedinthecourseof
Christiantradition.Hedemonstratesthatthereisnothingstaticaboutthetermand
itsmeaning.Ithas,infact,becomemultivalentanditisessentialtopayattentionto
238Benedict,JesusofNazarethPartTwo,281.
110
themanylayersofmeaningthetermLogoshasacquiredinthelifeoftheChurch
overtime.239Followingthedevelopmentofthetermandthevaryingdegreesof
meaningofitisawayoftracingthedevelopmentofthetheologyGodandof
Christology.InlightofitsappropriationintheareaofChristology,itthenhas
implicationsfortheChristianunderstandingofcreationandanthropologyaswell.
InhisexaminationofthehistoricalrootsanddevelopmentoftheJudeo‐Christian
tradition,henotesthattherewasafundamentalchoicetobehad,betweenLogos
andmyth.240Exactlyatthetimethe“gods”oftheGreekswerebeingdismissed
thankstothepurifyingreasonofthephilosophers,theonenessandtranscendence
ofGodwasbeingmorefirmlyestablishedintheancientworld.TheGreek
displacementofmythologybyphilosophythenencounteredthebiblicalworld‐view
ofJewsandChristians.241Theinteractionbetweenthesetwoculturesandtheir
mutualchallengeandpurificationofeachotherproducedsomethingnew.Myths
wouldnolongerdo,butneitherwouldphilosophicalreasonalonesufficeinthe
attempttoexplainreality.AttheheartofthisencounterisLogos,themeaningof
whichisexpressedultimatelyintheconcretepersonhoodofJesusChrist.The
apprehensionofthefullnessofwhatthistermsignifiesconstitutesakindof
unfoldingdramainitsownrightinthephilosophicalandtheologicalrealm.
Inatypicallypatristicstyleoftheologicalexpositionwhereinhelikesto
emphasizetheunityofwhatseemstobeincompatible,Ratzingernotesthe239Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,189.240Ibid.,139‐43.241JosefPieperandRomanoGuardini,twoofthegreatinfluencesonRatzinger,wereverymuchfocusedonthisrelationshipofthedevelopmentofmythtoLogosinwesternthought.Seeforexample,JosefPieper,"TheConceptofTradition,"TheReviewofPolitics20.04,1958andRomanoGuardini,SpiritoftheLiturgy(NewYork:Herder,1998).
111
“scandal”presentedinassertingtheunionoflogosandsarx.Intheopeninglinesof
hissectiononChristinhisIntroduction,hedescribeshowthesecondarticleofthe
Creed“proclaimstheabsolutelystaggeringallianceoflogosandsarx,ofmeaning
andasinglehistoricalfigure.Themeaningthatsustainsallbeinghasbecomeflesh;
thatis,ithasenteredhistoryandbecomeoneindividualinit;itisnolongersimply
whatencompassesandsustainshistorybutapointinit.”242Havingestablishedthe
tensionbetweentherealitiesthatdonotseemto“fittogether”,hisaudienceisthen
openeduptohearingproclaimedinafreshwaythecentralmysteryoftheChristian
vision‐themysteryofthepersonwhouniteswhatseemssoinherentlyseparated.
Inmorerecentdaysandinamoreapastoralsetting,hemakesthisproclamationof
theonlyrealitythatcanbridgethechasmbetweenspiritandflesh,betweeneternity
andhistory.InaproclamationofthemysteryoftheIncarnationforaworld‐wide
audience,heexplains:
‘TheWordbecameflesh’.Beforethisrevelationweoncemorewonder:howcanthisbe?TheWordandtheflesharemutuallyopposedrealities;howcantheeternalandalmightyWordbecomeafrailandmortalman?Thereisonlyoneanswer:Love.Thosewholovedesiretosharewiththebeloved,theywanttobeonewiththebeloved,andSacredScriptureshowsusthegreatlovestoryofGodforhispeoplewhichculminatedinJesusChrist.243
Thephilosophicalquestion,then,astohowLogosandsarxcanbeunitedisresolved
onlyinfollowingthenarrativeofsalvationhistory.Bytrackingthisnarrative,the
meaningoftheeternalLogoseventhatLogosthatprovidesthebasisof
metaphysicalrealityitself‐comestobeseeninnewwaysdependingonhowitis242Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,193.243BenedictXVI,UrbietOrbiChristmasMessage,2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/urbi/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_mes_20101225_urbi_en.html
112
communicatedinhistory.Indeed,asitturnsoutinthecourseofhumanhistory,the
unityoflogosandsarxiscommunicateddialogicallyasaword,asaperson,who
revealsloveitselftoallofcreation.
FromRatiotoVerbum
RatzingernotesthattheGreeksunderstoodLogostomeansomethinglike
“meaning”.InitiallythewordwasassociatedinLatinwithratio.Bythepowerof
thisLogos,throughratio,theCreatorcreateswithintelligence,inawaythatis
accessibletoreason.TheCreatorspeaksthroughcreationinsuchawaythatall
beingthatcomestobeis“Being‐thought.”244Ofcourse,theintelligibilityofthe
createdorderisnotanotionthathasitsbirthintheChristiannarrative.TheGreek
philosophicaltraditionthatforcenturieschallengedtheold“mythologyofthegods”
wasanimportanttransitioninintellectualandculturalhistorytoseekareasonable
wayofunderstandingtheuniverse.Philosophyandsciencehad,inthissense,
purifiedreligioninthewesterntradition.Seeingcreationasbeingthoughthad
becomeawell‐establishedaspectofGreekphilosophy.Still,withinthis
philosophicalhorizon,adifferentlimitationwasdiscoveredasquestioningofthe
sourceofthisbeing‐thoughtpersisted.Isthecreationthatis“being‐thought,”
generatedinfreedomorisitmerelyaproductofakindofautomated
determinism?245DoestheCreatorcreateoutofnecessityorinfreedom?The
introductionofthebiblicalnarrativeatthismomentmakespossibleanencounterin
historybetweenthehorizonofphilosophyandthatoffaiththatthenproducesa
244Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,156.245Ibid.,157.
113
newkindofsynthesisforhowtounderstandtherelationshipbetweenGodandthe
world.WiththeLogosatthecenterofthisunionbetweentheworldsofphilosophy
andbiblicalfaith,bothcreationandhistoryareabletobeunderstoodaspersonal
expressionsofdivinecommunication.
VerbumCommunicatedasPerson
Thisnewsynthesisbegins,inacertainway,whenSt.JohntheEvangelist
appliedthetermLogostothefigureofJesusofNazarethintheprologueofhis
gospel.Ratzingernotesthatthetermbegantotakeonnewmeaninginthehistoryof
ideasinthismoment.“Itnolongerdenotedsimplythepermeationofallbeingand
meaning;itcharacterizesthisman:hewhoishereis‘Word’…Heisconstantly
‘spoken’andhencethepurerelationbetweenthespeakerandthespokento.Thus
logosChristology,as‘word’theology,isonceagaintheopeningupofbeingtothe
ideaofrelationship.”246Inthisonepivotalmoment,then,assalvationhistoryand
philosophymeetonascripturalfield,anewrealityemerges.BytheChurch’s
receptionofthefigureofChristastheLogositselfintheflesh,allofcreationand
humanhistorybeginstobere‐interpretedinlightofthis“verbum”whoisactually
communicatedasaperson.247
TheLogicofallrealitynowbeginstobeunderstoodnotonlyas“meaning”in
theabstract,butmeaningasword‐spokenthatinturnbecomesaperson.Inthis
sense,thereisakindofmergingandmutualpurificationoftherealmsof
246Ibid.,189.247Invariousways,thecommunicativenatureoftheologyisbeingexploredrecently.Seeforexample,HelmutPeukert,Science,Action,andFundamentalTheology:TowardaTheologyofCommunicativeAction(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1984)andMatthiasScharer,ThePracticeofCommunicativeTheology:IntroductiontoaNewTheologicalCulture(NewYork:Crossroad,2008).
114
mythologicalreligion,philosophyandhumanhistory.Theconsequenceofthis
pivotalencounterofthesewaysofthinkingalsoopensupanewhorizonfor
humanityinaworldwithapersonatthecenterofitandwithwhomareal
relationshipispossible.Inahomiletictenor,Benedictexplains,
AttheverymomentwhentheMagi,guidedbythestar,adoredChristthenewking,astrologycametoanend,becausethestarswerenowmovingintheorbitdeterminedbyChrist…Itisnottheelementalspiritsoftheuniverse,thelawsofmatter,whichultimatelygoverntheworldandmankind,butapersonalGodgovernsthestars,thatis,theuniverse;itisnotthelawsofmatterandofevolutionthathavethefinalsay,butreason,will,love—aPerson.AndifweknowthisPersonandheknowsus,thentrulytheinexorablepowerofmaterialelementsnolongerhasthelastword;wearenotslavesoftheuniverseandofitslaws,wearefree.248
Thefreedomofhumanityismadepossiblethenbyparticipatinginthelogi‐cal
structureoftheuniversethatisnotonlylogicalinthesenseofitsinherent
intelligibility,butalsointhesenseofthelogicofthecommunicativestructureof
realitythatisbasedontheLogoswhoisWord.
Thedevelopmentofthemeaningoflogosfromratiotoverbumisnotonlya
matterofsemanticorlinguisticpreference,inRatzinger’sview.Seeinglogosnot
merelyasratio,butasverbumhasenormousimplications,ofcourse.Anditstands
atthecenterofRatzinger’sown“dynamic”understandingoftheChristianmysteries
thatcontributedtohisinnovativecontributionstotheChurch’steachingon
revelationasthepreviouschapterindicated.JaredWicks,forexample,sees
Ratzinger’sChristologyresonatinginthecompendiumonrevelationwrittenby
Rahnerandhimasanearlyalternativetotheneo‐scholasticformulationofferedby
248BenedictXVI,OnChristianHope:SpeSalvi,EncyclicalLetter(Washington,DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2007),#5.
115
thepreparatorycommissionattheCouncil.Ratzinger’sinfluenceisseeninthe
descriptionofChristasthe“vivumDeiverbumquaerensnos.”Thislivingwordthat
hasbeenseekingouthumanitythroughoutallofhistoryisfulfilledinthe
Incarnation.249InlightofthishistoricalmomentoftheIncarnation,theLogosthat
hadbeenspokenthroughoutallofhistoryandindeedfromthemomentofcreation,
isunderstoodanew.
Movingfromratiotoverbumopenedupanecessarilydialogicalstructureto
theologythatRatzingerseesasessentialtothecontentoftheChristianmystery
itself.Heexplains,“Wordneverstandsonitsown;itcomesfromsomeone,isthere
tobeheard,andisthereforemeantforothers.”250“Word”byitsverynatureis
communicativeandpointstodialogue‐onbeingspokenanddemandingaresponse
fromtheonetowhomitisspoken.ThiscentraltermtakenfromScriptureis
appropriatedinalivingwaythatconveysameaninggiventoanarrativeand
dialogicalviewoftheChristianmysteryandmovesawayfromamerely
philosophicalortheoreticalunderstandingofGodandhisself‐revelationto
humanitytoanunderstandingthatradicallyre‐formulatestheapproachtothese
questions.Consequently,asthisnewdimensionof“logostheology”comestobe
appropriatedintheChristiantradition,thetheologyofGodandindeedallof
metaphysicsbeginstocallforarenewedunderstandinginRatzinger’sestimation.
Hewrites:
249W.J.Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:AChapterintheLifeofPopeBenedictXVI(NewOrleans,LA:LoyolaUniversity,2007),9.250Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,210.
116
TheexperienceofaGodwhoconductsadialogue,oftheGodwhoisnotonlylogosbutalsodia‐logos,notonlyanideaandmeaningbutspeechandwordinthereciprocalexchangesofpartnersinconversation‐thisexperienceexplodedtheancientdivisionofrealityintosubstance,therealthing,andaccidents,themerelycircumstantial.Itisnowquiteclearthatthedialogue,therelatio,standsbehindthesubstanceasanequallyprimordialformofbeing.251
TheassertionthatGodandindeedallofbeingaretobere‐interpretedinlightof
“experience”oftheGodwhoengagesindialogue‐inrevelation‐isindeedstriking.It
alsochangestheepistemologicallandscape.Becauserelatio“standsbehind”andis
thereforeconstitutiveofallbeing,beingcanreallyonlybegintobeunderstoodnot
bywayofprivatespeculationbutinthecontextofdialoguewithGodandinthe
contextofdialoguewiththebelievingcommunity‐thosewhohave“experienced”
thesameGodwhoengagesindialogue.
Ratzingerstressesthatthedevelopmentofthemeaningofthetermlogosis
nottheproductofpurehumanspeculation,butratherthat“itgrewinthefirstplace
outoftheinterplaybetweenhumanthoughtandthedataofChristianfaith.”252
ThetranslationoflogosasverbumintheVulgate,aswellastheultimate
descriptionoftheeternalLogos‐made‐fleshasprosoponintheChristologicaland
TrinitariandebatesoftheearlyChurch,indicatealivelytraditionappropriating
the“data”ofChristianfaithasitishandeddownfromthepast.Thatwhichis
“given”intheChristiantradition,aslongasthetraditioncontinuestobeguided
bytheoriginaldata,continuestobeabletobeminedfordeeperandfuller
meaningasthattraditionextendsintonewculturesandtimeperiods.
251Ibid.,183
252JosephRatzinger,“ConcerningtheNotionofPersoninTheology,”Communio17(Fall1990),439.
117
APersonattheCenterofChristologyandSoteriology
Intheintroductionofprosopon,forexample,thetraditionborrows
deliberatelyfromthetheatricalworldpreciselybecausetheologiansinthe
ChristiantraditionviewedChristianfaithasaplayingoutofaliteraldramaof
salvation.RecallingJustinMartyr’sanalysisoftheLogosspeakingthroughthe
prophetsoftheOldTestament,forexample,Ratzingernotes,“Theliteraryartistic
deviceoflettingrolesappeartoenliventhenarrativewiththeirdialoguereveals
tothetheologianstheonewhoplaysthetruerolehere,theLogos,theprosopon,the
personoftheWordwhichisnolongermerelyrole,butperson.”253Theroleof
theonewhosaveshaseverythingtodonotjustwithwhatheaccomplishesbut
whoheis.Itisevidentfromtheearlystagesoftheologicalreflectionthen,that
therewasperceivedaninherentunitybetweensoteriologicaland
Christologicalunderstanding.HowChristsavesisaquestioninseparablefrom
whoheis.Ratzinger’sretrievalofthispatristicapproachtoChristologyas
inherentlyintertwinedwithsoteriologyservesasacorrectiveoftheneo‐
scholastictraditionthattendedtoseparateoutquestionsofthenatureof
salvationfromthephilosophicalgroundingofChristologicaldoctrines
includingthenatureandmodeofthehypostaticunion,theknowledgeandwill
ofChrist,etc.Butbyhighlightingtheinterplaybetweenphilosophyand
salvationhistoryasembodiedthroughthemediationofLogos,Ratzinger
emergesasanimportantfigureinpost‐conciliartheologythatsoughttore‐
connectChristologicalconcernswithsoteriologicalones‐reunitingtheological
253Ibid.,442.
118
reflectiononChristwithitsbiblicalcontext.254Itispreciselythepersonwho
reconcileshumanityanddivinityinhispassionanddeathonthecrosswhoisthe
personwhohasunitedhumanityanddivinityinhisownpersonintheIncarnation.
Hisidentityandhisworkareone.
ThoughtheearlyChristiantraditionembracedtheunderstandingofthe
Wordasperson,thecategoryofWorditselfalsokeptacertainprideofplace.Butit
didsoasunderstoodinlightofpersonhood.Theprimacyofthecategoryofthe
WordinChristologydidnotleavequestionsinthepurelyphilosophicalor
speculativerealm.ThenatureofTruthitselfthatLogoscommunicatescametobe
re‐interpretedinlightofloveintheChristianvision‐fromastaticconceptionofitto
amoredynamicone.Assuch,thequestionoftheWord’seffectinsoteriology
remainedalwaysprominent.Ratzingerexplainsthisgradualunfoldingofthe
positionoftheLogosasTruthasbeingprimaryandleadingseamlesslytothe
apprehensionoftheTruthasPerson:“AlreadyinGreekphilosophyweencounter
theideathatmancanfindeternallifeifheclingstowhatisindestructible–totruth,
whichiseternal.Heneeds,asitwere,tobefulloftruthinordertobearwithin
himselfthestuffofeternity.ButonlyiftruthisaPerson,canitleadmethroughthe
nightofdeath.WeclingtoGod–toJesusChristtheRisenOne.Andthusweareled
bytheOnewhoishimselfLife.Inthisrelationshipwetoolivebypassingthrough
death,sincewearenotforsakenbytheOnewhoishimselfLife.”255Situatingthe
254Ratzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne:AnApproachtoaSpiritualChristology,13‐5.255Benedict,“MassoftheLord’sSupper:HomilyofHisHolinessBenedictXVI”St.JohnLateranBasilica,1April2010.http://www.pcf.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20100401_coena‐domini_en.html
119
questionoftruthagainstthebackdropofthefinalquestionofthelimitofdeath
movesthewholediscussionfromthespeculativetotheexistentialrealmofconcern.
Ratzinger’sargumentthat“onlyiftruthisaperson,canitleadmethroughdeath,”is
notofcourseaproductofapriorispeculation.Itis,ratherthefruitofaposteriori
reflectionupontheexperienceofJesus’life,deathandResurrectiongiveninthe
scripturalwitness.HeisthepersonwhoisrevealedtobeTruthitselfprecisely
becauseheleadsthroughdeath‐thatwhichotherwisewouldseemtodefinethe
limitsofthetruthofhumanexistence.Theexperiencethenofthe“Jesusofhistory”
whodefeatsdeath,leadstotheunderstandingofthesamemanasthe“Christof
faith”preciselybecauseofthefactofthedestructionofdeathandrestorationoflife
thatoccursinhiminhistory.
III.ThePersonofChristasKeytoScriptureandTradition
InarrivingattheunderstandingoftheLogosultimatelyrevealedinScripture
asperson,thequestioninevitablyarises,whatkindofperson?Whatarethevalues
ofthisperson?Whataretheprimaryrelationships?Whatarethedispositionsand
aimsofthisLogosmadeperson?Carefulexegesisofcourseiscentraltothistaskof
answeringthesequestions.ForRatzinger,thefullnessoftheidentityoftheWordof
Godspokeninthecontextofecclesialfaith,amongtheChosenPeopleofGod,isthe
personofJesusChrist.ChristbothemergesoutofthetraditionofScriptureandis
thesummationoftherevelationofScriptureandheisthereforethekeytoits
120
authenticinterpretation.256Consequently,hemustbeapproachedonhisownterms
andnotaccordingtothosewhodonothavethebenefitofthehorizonofthe
communalandecclesialhermeneuticoffaith.Hemustbeapproachedasheis
presentedinScriptureandfromwithintradition.ForRatzinger,Christisalsothe
formofauthentictradition,emergingfromthenarrativeofthepastandyetbringing
tofulfillmentthenewdevelopmentoftheRevelationofGodforallgenerations.
WhathasbeenhandedoninfaithfromthetimeofAbrahamtoJohntheBaptistwas
orientedtowardthecomingofChrist.Andsincehiscoming,thelivingtraditionof
theChurchhashadasitsraisond’etre,theongoingattempttounderstandand
appropriatethemeaningofhisidentityandhowheaccomplishesthenewand
everlastingcovenantbetweenGodandhumanity.
ThetaskofunderstandingthefigureofJesusofNazarethhasfromthevery
beginning,beenfraughtwithdifficulty.TheGospelsthemselvesofferakindof
paradoxwhenitcomestoJesus’relationshiptoTraditionandthefulfillmentofthe
HebrewScriptures.RatzingerreliesonErnstKäsemann’sassessmentofthe
dilemma:thequestionforthemoderninterpreterofJesusseemstobethechoice
betweenJesusasakindof“liberalrevolutionary”ora“pioustraditionalist.”
Portionsofthegospelsgivesupportforbothoftheseconclusions.Ontheonehand,
thereistheadmonitionJesusgivesthatifanyonedepartsintheleastwayfromthe
demandsoftheLaw,he“willbeconsideredleastinthekingdomofheaven”(Mt
256Again,WicksattributestoRatzingerthelanguageofChristasthe“ClavisScripturarum,canoninteriorapriensquodineisest”inthecompendiumonrevelationgiventothebishopsatVaticanII.Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII,10.
121
5:19).Atthesametime,JesusoperateswithclearfreedomwithrespecttotheLaw
whenhehimselfremindsthePhariseesthattheSabbathis“madeforman,notman
fortheSabbath”(Mk2:27).257ButthewayforwardinunderstandingJesusisnotto
choosebetweentheseseeminglyopposingviewsofJesusbutratherlettingthe
tensionbetweenthemspeaktothewholetruthofhisidentity.Ratzingerexplains
thatJesusoperatesinawaysuggestingheisobedienttoTraditionandyetfreefrom
theconstrictionsofparticulartraditionsthathaveemergedintheattempttobe
faithfultotheunderlyingRevelationoftheWordofGod.Towhat,then,isJesus
reallyobedient?
ForRatzinger,thefundamentalidentityofJesusisnotasafollowerof
traditionnorisitasarevolutionaryagainstit.Heisneitherfundamentallyaliberal
revolutionarynorheissimplyatraditionalistinhispietywithrespecttotheLaw.
Rather,hismostbasicidentityisastheSonoftheFather.258AstheFatheristhe
initiatoroftheCovenant,wecanseeintheSonthefulfillmentoftheCovenantfrom
boththedivineandhumansides.Assuch,Jesusbothaffirmsthecovenantal
relationshipofthepastandalsoiscriticalofthefollowingofitinthepresent.Heis
criticalinorderthatthecovenantmightbefulfilledbythewholePeopleofGodin
257Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology,95.Cf.,ErnstKäsemann,“WarJesusLiberal?”inDerRufderFreiheit,3rdedition,(Tübingen,Mohr,1968),19‐53.258Ibid.,94‐99.SeealsothebeginningofBenedict’s“personalsearchforthefaceoftheLord”whenhedescribeshowtheBaptismoftheJesusgivesthefirstcuesastotherealsubstanceofJesus’identitynotasa“humangeniussubjecttoemotionalupheavals,sometimesfailsandsometimessucceeds”butratheras“thebelovedSon.”Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,24.
122
thefuture.Thefulfillmentofthiscovenantistodrawhumanitypreciselyintothe
SonshipthatisatthecoreofJesus’identity.259
PersonasSon
Morethanaphilosophicalquestion,therealityofthedivinepersonentering
intohumanhistoryisaquestionofenteringintoastory.Andatthecenterofthe
storyarecharacters,withrealrelationships.Thereisasenseinwhich,in
Ratzinger’sapproach,theidentityofJesusasSonoftheFatherunfoldsfromthe
identificationofhimwith“theWord.”ThisfilialidentityofJesusisanother
expressionoftheparadigmoftherelationalityofWord‐spoken‐by‐speakerand
continuestorevealthefullnessoftheidentityofJesusofNazareth.Thisisevident
inBenedict’smostmatureexpositionofthefigureofJesusasprimarilyrevealingthe
characterof“Son.”EspeciallyintheopeningchapterofthefirstvolumeofJesusof
Nazareth,inhisdescriptionofthebaptismintheJordan,Jesusispresentedinthe
gospelsasthebelovedSonoftheFather.Thisistrueatthebeginningofhispublic
ministryandthenagaininthenatureofhisrejectingthetemptationsofSataninthe
desertbyreferringbackagainandagaintohisrelationshipwiththeFatherasthe
centerofhisidentity.AllthewaytohiscommunicationwithhisFatheronthe
Cross,itisclearforBenedictwhatthecentralcharacteristicofJesus’personis‐
namelyhisidentityastheBelovedSonoftheFather.Thisidentityisthenopenedup
andextendedtothefollowersofJesusasheteachesthemtoshareinhisown
259Benedict,TheGodofJesusChrist:MeditationsontheTriuneGod(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008),33‐7.
123
relationshipwiththeFatherwhenheteachesthemtopray.260Thisfilialidentityof
Jesus,then,alsocomestomarkthecoreidentityofthewholeChurch‐aschildrenof
theFather.
ThecentralityoftheSonshipofJesusismadeevident,forRatzinger,not
merelyfromassertionsofthatidentityinScripture(eg“theFatherandIareone,”
etc.),butrathertheimportofitisdiscoveredonlyinfollowingthewholeofthe
narrativeofthepersonofJesus.Weseethatcentraltohispersonhoodisthemore
specificidentityofthebeloved,andthereforeobedientSonoftheFather.Thisisan
identitythatgetslivedoutanditisanidentitymostpoignantlyrecognizedinhis
sufferinganddeath.InPrinciplesofCatholicTheology,Ratzingerdrawsuponan
observationfromoneofhismosttrustedsourcesofbiblicalexegesis,Heinrich
Schlier.PreciselybecauseoftheidentityofJesusastheSonoftheFather,thereisa
waytounderstandmoredirectlytheinnerrelationshipoftheIncarnationandthe
CrossandwhatisrevealedaboutGodinanunfoldingwaythroughthesetwocentral
“poles”oftheChristianvision.“Word”alonedoesnotadequatelycommunicatethe
depthofthisdoublerevelationfromIncarnationtoCross.Theinherentrelationality
andthecentralaspectofsonship‐as‐loveuniquely“carries”themeaningofthese
twocentraleventsinthelifeofChristas“Son.”WhoJesusisandwhathe
accomplishes,thesubstanceofthe“nominalandverbal”confessionsoffaith,are
broughtintounitywhenJesusisviewedprimarilyfromhisfilialidentity.Ratzinger
arguesthatintheLettertotheHebrews,forexample,theIncarnationisinterpreted
asaneventwhichisfundamentallyadialogue(Wortgeschehen)inprayer
260Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,9‐45;135‐41.
124
(Gebetgeschehen)betweenGodtheFatherandGodtheSon(10:5)whereinthe
IncarnationisseenastheacceptancebytheSaviorofthebodywhichwillthenbe
offeredontheCross.261ThisdialogueofFatherandSon,adialoguethatis“inthe
Spirit,”continuesallthewayuptoCalvary.Forthisreason,forRatzinger,Jesus’
sonshipfromtheIncarnationtotheCross,isabletoaccountforandprovidethe
locusoftheperfectexpressionoftheloveofGodforhumanityandhumanityfor
God.
DoubleRevelationoftheIncarnationandCross
Wecometothepointthen,inRatzinger’sChristologythatseemsaculmination.
TheunderstandingofLogos,byapathofhistoricalandtheologicalappropriationin
theChristiantradition,hasgonethroughvariousstagesofmeaning‐fromratio,to
verbumandthentotheappropriationofverbumthatiscommunicatedasprosopon
(person),theprimarycharacterizationofwhichisthatoffilius.Indeed,in
Ratzinger’smaturereflectiononthepersonofJesus,itseemsthatSonoftheFather
takesaprivilegedplaceamongthemanytitlesandmodesofunderstandingJesusof
Nazareth,262whilethisdoesnotbyanymeansexcludetheimportanceoftheother
modesofChristology.WhencrowdswonderatthemessageofJesusinthegospels,
whentheywonderwherehegetstheauthoritytospeakashedoes,Ratzingernotes
thatthesearetherealquestionsabouthisidentityemerging.Andiftheidentityis
madeclear,theworkJesusiscapableof,thefactthathecomesastheonewhosaves,
alsocomesintofocus.RatzingerappealsbacktothecategoryofJesus’sonshipin
261Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1987),20.262Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,1‐8.
125
attemptingtoanswerthesequestions.WhatJesusspeakstotheworld,hesays,
flowsdirectlyfromwhatisspokentohimbyhisFather.CounteringHarnack’s
famouscontentionthatJesusspokeonlyabouttheFatherandthatthereforethe
dogmaticclaimsabouthimdevelopedinChristologyoughttobesetaside,Ratzinger
responds,“JesusisonlyabletospeakabouttheFatherinthewayhedoesbecause
heistheSon,becauseofhisfilialcommunionwiththeFather.TheChristological
dimension‐inotherwords,themysteryoftheSonasrevealeroftheFather‐is
presentineverythingJesussaysanddoes.”263TheChristologicaldefinitionsof
Jesus’identityasdivineandhuman,then,arenotaccretionstohissonshipbutflow
directlyfromthisidentitysointimatelyrelatedtotheFather.
Butevenwithintheframeworkofthe“SonChristology”264ofRatzinger,thereis
noroomforcomplacency.WithintheidentityofJesusasSonoftheFather,afurther
tensioniseverpresentanditisatensionthathasbeenpresentthroughoutthe
Christiantheologicaltradition.Itisatensionbetweentheologybuiltprimarilyfrom
theIncarnationandthatfromtheCross.Heacknowledgesreadilythatnoeasy
synthesisispossiblethatmightdissolvethistension.Rather,“theymustremain
presentaspolaritiesthatmutuallycorrecteachotherandonlybycomplementing
eachotherpointtothewhole.”265Holdingthesepolaritiesintensionwithone
anotheristhetaskofthetheologian,forRatzinger.Henotestheearlyworkdonein
bringingintodialoguethe“Godofthephilosophers”andthe“Godofbiblicalfaith”in
juxtaposingtheimportanceofthecategoryof“being”and“doing.”Forbylookingat263Ibid.,7.264Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,168.ThisisthetermheusestodescribetheperspectiveonJesusgivenintheGospelofJohn,onwhichhereliesheavilyforhisowntheology.265Ibid.,230.
126
thefigureofChristastheLogos‐made‐flesh,inatheologyofChristbasedprimarily
ontheIncarnation,astheGreektraditionespeciallydevelopedit,theWordisseen
asthatwhichholdsallbeingtogether.Atthesametime,preciselybecauseofwhat
isencounteredontheCross,theWordiscommunicatednotjustasmere“meaning”
orintelligibilityorevensimplerelationality,butasloveitself‐thatradical,personal
givingawayofoneselfforanother.266WhenlookinguponthefigureofChrist,
Ratzingersays,weseethatifheisheldastheWordthroughwhomallthingsare
made,ifheisbeingitself,heisbeinginsuchawaythatbeingcomestobeseenas
doing‐as“goingoutofoneself.”Beingisseen,then,throughaChristologicallensas
“exodus”,as“transformation.”Therefore,hewrites,“aproperlyunderstood
ChristologyofbeingandoftheIncarnationmustpassoverintothetheologyofthe
Crossandbecomeonewithit;conversely,atheologyoftheCrossthatgivesfull
measuremustpassoverintotheChristologyoftheSonandofbeing.”267Suchan
attemptonRatzinger’spart,tokeepthepolaritiesofIncarnationandCrossin
tensionwithoneanother,isillustrativeofakeyaspecttotherenewalofChristian
theologythathasseenthetwopolesdriftfromoneanotheratvarioustimesinthe
historyoftheology.
RecognitionofthetendencyinChristiantheologytoseparatetooeasilythe
theologiesoftheIncarnationandoftheCrossemergedinthedeliberationsatthe
SecondVaticanCouncilaswell.JaredWicksnotesRatzinger’swarningagainstthis
divideinthecontextofthediscussionaroundGaudiumetSpeswhichhefoundat
266Ratzinger,“ConcerningtheNotionofPersoninTheology”,443‐447.267Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,230.
127
timestobetooeasilydrawnintotheoptimismofthedaymanifestinggreattrustin
thepromiseof“progress”inmoderncultureandhumandevelopmentwithin
modernityandusingthetheologyoftheIncarnationtoprovideaframeworkforthis
naïveworld‐affirmingoptimism.Ratzingerwarnedagainstthenotionof“progress”
byourowneffortsastheologicallyjustifiedbythetraditionaldoctrineofthe
Incarnation.RatherheinsistsuponthenecessityoftheCrossinsalvationhistory
whichisanactiodivinaofamare,notjustlaborare.268HeurgedtheCounciltokeep
thetensionbetweenIncarnationandCrossalive,maintainingthatafullChristology
involveskeepingthepolaritiesoftheIncarnationandtheCrossindialoguewithone
another.Thetension,heargued,isessentialiftheChurchistobetruetotheone
ChristiannarrativegiveninScripture.Remainingtruetothistensionalsoprovides
thegroundingforamoreprofoundanthropologicalvisioninRatzinger’seyes,
providingabasisforhopethatismuchdeeperthanmereoptimismaboutthefuture
basedonasuperficialideologyofhuman“progress”inthemodernera.
RatzingerholdsthattheCrossalsoforcesustoreconsiderwhoGodiswho
hasallowedhimselftobedrawnintothisscandaloushumiliationanddefeatinthe
personofJesus.Heexplains,“InthefaceofthecrucifiedChristweseeGod,wesee
trueomnipotencenotthemythofomnipotence....InHim,trueomnipotencemeans
lovingtotheextremeofsufferingforus.”269ButthisclearvisionofwhoGodreally
isandwhatlovereallylookslikeisnotatallclearpreciselybecauseoftheCross.In268Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:aChapterintheLifeofPopeBenedictXVI,12.Cf.,ActaSynodalia,III/5,562‐3;IV/3,760‐1.269Benedict,“VisittothePontificalRomanMajorSeminaryinHonoroftheMemorialofOurLadyofTrust..”Rome,12February2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/february/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20100212_seminario‐romano‐mag_en.html
128
factourvisionisverymuchcloudedwhenwelookupontheCrucifiedChrist.This
seemstobenoGodatall,butavictim,onewhohasbeendefeated.Indeed,thereisa
senseinwhichwecanhaveaclearerconceptionofGodtoalimiteddegree,as
Creator,aslongasGodremainsdistantandweextrapolatewhatwethinkaboutGod
bywayofwhatweencounterandknowinthecreatedworld.Surelyitisan
intelligentandall‐powerfulGodwhocandoallthis!AsGodcomesclose,however,
ourvisionisforatimeconfused.OurideasofGodcannolongerremainsoclearand
distinct.RatzingerexplainsthedifficultythatcomesintoplayforatheologyofGod
onceGodbridgesthegapbetweenheavenandearth.“Godhascomesoneartous
thatwecankillhimandthathethereby,soitseems,ceasestobeGodforus.”270
OnlyinthecontemplationoftheLogosrevealedasthepersonofJesusarewe
confrontedwiththesechallengestoseehumanityanddivinitybothinnewlight.
Andspecifically,itisthroughtherelationofJesusasSonoftheFatherthatwesee
whatisthedrivingforceatworkinhislife,namelyfiliallove.
TheFatherKnowninPrayer
WehaveexploredbeforehowitisthattheFather‐Sonrelationisadialogical
relation.ButtheSon’sexperienceoftheCrossdemonstratesthereisaparticular
texturetothedialogicalrelationshipbetweentheFatherandHim.Itismorethan
justamutualspeakingbackandforth.Itisarelationshipofobedience.The
dialogueisoneinwhichtheSonhearstheFatherandthenactsoutofobedienceto
Him.ButwhatisthesourceandaimofJesus’obediencetotheFather?Ratzinger
notesinPrinciplesthatthisobedienceisnotamechanicalone,butratheronethat
270Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,55.
129
canonlybeunderstoodinthecontextofhistwo‐foldrelationshipa.)totheFather
andb.)tohumanity.TheChalcedonianframeworkofhisidentitythat
simultaneouslyassertsthefulldivinityandhumanityofJesus,therefore,isa
hermeneuticalkeytounderstandinghismissiontobeobedientinsuchawaythatit
leadstohispassionanddeath.TheprimacyofhisidentityasthedivineSonofthe
EternalFatherispreciselythefoundationforhismissiontotakeonhumannature
tosaveitasGodandman.271
Inordertounderstandthisfilial,obedientialrelationshiptheSonhaswith
theFatherthatleadstohimbeingsoradically“fortheworld,”itisnecessary,in
Ratzinger’sview,toenterintotheinteriorlifeoftheSonthatatitscoreisaspiritual
communionoflovewiththeFather.Onlythisperspectivecanshedlightforuson
thetruenatureofhisidentity.OneofthecentralthesesinRatzinger’sthoughtis
thatsincetheessenceofJesusishisconstantprayerfulcommunionwiththeFather,
wemustenterintohisprayerinordertogettoknowwhohereallyis.272Inthis,
Christologysetstheboundariesforanthropology.Inenteringintotheprayerand
relationsofJesus,thewayisopenedforhumanitytobefullyrealizedassonsand
daughtersoftheEternalFather.AsRatzingerexplains,thisistherootofourown
trueidentities,tocometoparticipateinJesus’sonship,inhisprayertoand
communionwiththeFather,bytheunitingpoweroftheHolySpirit:“Thequestion
ofJesus’filialrelationtotheFather,getstotheveryrootofthequestionofman’s
271Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology,94‐101.272deGaál,TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift,5.
130
freedomandliberation,andunlessthisisdoneeverythingelseisfutile.”273The
implicationsforthedisciplesofJesusaredefinitiveinlightofthisfilialidentityof
Jesus.InunionwithChrist,hisfollowersareabletoapproachtheOnewhohasbeen
invisibleuntilnowasFather.Heexplainsthisunfoldingofthedoublerevelationof
whoGodisandwhohumanitycanbecomebywayofunionwithChrist:
ForonewhohasgrownupintheChristiantradition,thewaybeginsinthe“thou”ofprayer:suchaoneknowsthathecanaddresstheLord;thatthisJesusisnotjustahistoricalpersonageofthepastbutisthesameinallages.Andheknows,too,thatin,withandthroughtheLord,hecanaddresshimtowhomJesussays“Father.”…HeseesthatthisJesusistruly“Son”inhiswholeexistence,isonewhoreceiveshisinmostbeingfromanother,thathislifeisareceiving.Inhimistobefoundthehiddenfoundation;intheactions,words,life,sufferingofhimwhoistrulySonitispossibletosee,hear,andtouchhimwhoisunknown.TheunknowngroundofbeingrevealsitselfasFather.274
Thisrevelationofthe“unknowngroundofbeing”asFatheralsobecomesthe
foundationandraisond’etreofthelifeoftheChurch.Thenatureofthecommunion
thatexistsintheChurchgatheredaroundthepersonofJesusisthepossibilityofhis
followersfindingthefullnessoflifeinparticipationinhisfilialidentity.
TheRisenChristDrawingHumanitytotheFather
OnlyincommunionwiththeRisenChrist,withJesuswhohasunitedhimself
tohumanityineverything,inlife,sufferingandeventheisolationofdeath,canthe
humanfamilybeledbeyonddeathintoeternallife.ItispreciselytheRisenChrist
whohasdefeateddeaththankstohisradicalreceptionoftheFather’slovethat
bringshimoutofthetomb,theplaceofthedead,itisthisChristthatisthesourceof
lifeandhopeforhumanity.HumanitywhoentersintothisrelationshipwithChrist
273Ratzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne:AnApproachtoaSpiritualChristology,35.274Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology,73.
131
istheChurch.ThemembersoftheChurchwhoenterinunionwiththeRisenChrist
arethosewhobecomethemembersoftheBodyofwhichChrististhehead.
ParticularlyinthegatheringtogethertolistentotheWordofGodwhoisChristand
theninreceivingthatsameChristinthesacraments,theChurchisableto
participateinChrist’sownidentityastheSonoftheFather.
Christ’sResurrectionmakesthisunionwithhimandthereforewiththe
Father,possible,forRatzinger.Inprovidingaunifiedexegesisoftheresurrection
narrativesfromJohn’sGospel,hefindsthebasisforthisunderstandingofthe
ChurchasgroundedinChrist’sfilialrelationshipwiththeFather.First,henotesthe
puzzlingresponsefromJesuswhenheappearstoMaryMagdalenewho,upon
recognitionofJesus,attemptstoclingtohimandreturntotheformerwayof
relatingtohimas“MyTeacher.”Rather,asJesusrebuffsherandtellshernotto
clingtohimuntilhehasascendedtotheFather(Jn20:17),heseemstobepointing,
inRatzinger’sview,totheneedtoberelatingtoJesusinafamiliaryetradicallynew
wayinhisResurrection.275ThisisconfirmedintheappearancetoThomasinsofar
asThomasisindeedinvitedtocomeclosetotouchJesus,onlybecauseitisclearthat
heisapproachingtheonewho,bearingthewounds,isindeedtheonewhodiedand
isnowinaglorifiedstate.Thereisclearlynoreturningtotheformerwayofrelating
toJesusasthewoundsarefrontandcenterinthisencounter.Ratzingerexplains
thatthispresentationofthewoundsismeantforThomas“nottomakehimforget
theCross,butrathertomakeitunforgettable.”276Asaresultofthispresentationof
275Ratzinger,DogmaandPreaching,302.276Ibid.,303.
132
theCrucifiedandRisenLordtotheChurchinthepersonofThomas,itisnow
possiblefortheChurchtobedrawnintocommunionultimatelywiththeFather.
Thisissosince,“JesushasnowbecometheonewhoisexaltedattheFather’sside
andaccessibletoeveryone.NowhecanbetouchedonlyastheOnewhoiswiththe
Father,astheonewhohasascended.”277Finally,inthecaseofthenarrativeofthe
disciplesonthewaytoEmmaus,aliturgicalelementisbroughtforthwhich
indicatesthatthisencounterwiththeRisenChrististhetruebasisofthelifeofthe
wholeChurch.Followingthepatternoftheliturgythatislaterestablished,Christis
recognizedandtrulyencounteredonlyafteraperiodoflisteningtotheWordand
thisrecognitionisperfectedonlyinthecommunionofthebreakingofthebread.
Finally,inJesus’subsequentdisappearingupontheirrecognitionofhim,thereis
implicit,forRatzinger,asenseofthemissionoftheChurch:“Theworshipofthe
LordinWordandsacramentisthewayinwhichwecanencountertheRisenLord;
thelovethatsharesamealwithhimopensoureyes.Thenhewhomwehave
recognizeddisappears,forhecallsustojourneyfartheralongtheroad.”278The
Resurrection,then,becomestheessentialhingeuponwhichturnsthesubsequent
theologyoftheChurch,forRatzinger.ItistothismovementfromChristologyto
ecclesiologythatwenowturnourattention.
ChristologicalBasisofEcclesiology
BybeingdrawnintothisrelationshipwithChrist,theChurchisthen
ultimatelybroughtintorelationshipwiththeEternalLogoswhoisnotonlytheone
277Ibid.,302.278Ibid.,303.
133
revealedgraduallyinsalvationhistory,buttheLogosthroughwhomallcreation
cameaboutinthefirstplace(Col1:15‐17).Whatbecomespossiblewithinthe
Churchisaccesstothefullnessoftruth‐forthehumanpersontofindthefullnessof
hisorheridentity‐tobeinrelationshipwiththeonethroughwhomallthingshave
theirbeing.RatzingersuccinctlyarticulatesthisChristologicalvisionthatlinksthe
eternalidentityofChristwithhishistoricalidentificationwiththeChurch:
OnlyChristcanholdtogetherandunifythewhole;whenwespeakofChrist,wemustofcoursealwaysseethetrinitarianmysteryinthebackground;hecomesfromtheFather,andheispresentinallofhistorythroughtheHolySpirit,whobearswitnesstoChristandguidesbelieversintoalltruth(Jn15:26;16:13).UniversalityisGod’sconcern;ChristholdsitalltogetherbecauseheistheSon.TheChristocentricemphasisis,assuch,alwaysaTrinitarianemphasis.279
Itfollowsthatthepatternofecclesialcommunionisalsoultimatelyfoundedin
Trinitarianpatternsofcommunionandlove.
IncomingintorelationshipwithChrist,then,onecomesintoTrinitarian
relationship‐participatinginthefilialloveoftheSonfortheFatherandbeingunited
intheloveoftheHolySpirit.Whatthebelieverseeksinapersonalandgenuine
dialoguewithGod‐an“I‐Thou”dialogue‐soonrevealsitselftobeadialoguethat
involvesgreatermultiplicityanddynamismthanmighthavebeenapparentinitially.
InaconsiderationoftheChristianrootsoftheconceptofthe“person”inwestern
thought,Ratzingernotesthatbecauseofthetheologicalreflectiononthequestions,
“WhoistheGodpresentedintheScripture?”and“WhoisChrist?”astheChristian
traditionslowlycomestounderstandhim,aconceptofpersonhoodisalsogiven
279Ratzinger,OntheWaytoJesusChrist(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005),132.
134
thatshedsnewlightonourownself‐understanding.280Forone,seeingthetrue
“person”revealedinChristmakesitclearthathumanrelationalitywithGodisatthe
heartofwhatitistobeaperson‐itisnotanannihilationoftheperson.Rather,
beinginrelationtoGod,“humanexistenceisnotcanceled,butcomestoitshighest
possibility.”281
ThistheologicalpersonalismthatemergesintheChristianintellectual
traditionisperfected,Ratzinger,holds,whenitisbroughtintotheperspectiveofthe
communiooftheTrinitarianrelations.Ratzingerdoesnotonlyassertatheological
anthropologyinthecourseofthisconsiderationoftheconceptofpersonhood
flowingfromChristologicaldeliberation.Hegoesastepfurthertodemonstratethe
Trinitarianshapeoftherelationsthatprovidethefoundationforauthentichuman
relations.HesaysthatChristologythatisunderstoodintandemwithaTrinitarian
framework“addstheideaof‘we’totheideaof‘I’and‘you’.”282Boththe‘I’of
humanityandthe‘You’ofGod,are,astheChristiannarrativeunfolds,seenfromthe
perspectiveofanintimatepersonalencounter,butitisnotaprivateencounter
betweentwoindividuals.Rather,thereismultiplicityandcommunityatworkon
“bothsides”ofthisencounterthathasChristatthecenter.Inthisregard,Christis
notmerelyanexemplartobefollowedwhoshowsthewaytounionwithGod.
Rather,heis“theintegratingspaceinwhichthe‘we’ofhumanbeingsgathersitself
towardthe‘you’ofGod.”283ThisnotionofChristasthe“integratingspace”inwhich
thewholeofhumanitycangathermakesitclearthatthisprocessofbeingdrawn280Ratzinger,“ConcerningtheNotionofPersoninTheology,”439.281Ibid.,452.282Ibid.283Ibid.,453.
135
intohisfilialrelationshipwiththeFatherisnotonethatannihilatesourpersonhood
butratherfulfillsitalwaysinthecontextofcommunionwithothers‐withthe
‘collectiveI’oftheChurch.Italsomakesitclearthatthisfilialrelationshipthat
involvesanobedientialaspect,isnotamatterofsubmissiontotheoneGodwhocan
easilybeconstruedasakindofeternalabsolutemonarch.Rather,thisrelationship,
thisdialoguethatwearedrawnintothroughChristisonethatnotonlyhas“space”
onthehumansidebutonthedivinesideaswell.Heexplains,
InChristianitythereisnotsimplyadialogicalprincipleinthemodernsenseofapure“I‐thou”relationship,neitheronthepartofthehumanpersonthathasitsplaceinthehistorical“we”thatbearsit;noristheresuchameredialogicalprincipleonGod’spartwhois,inturn,nosimple“I,”butthe“we”ofFather,Son,andSpirit.Onbothsidesthereisneitherthepure“I,”northepure“you,”butonbothsidesthe“I”isintegratedintothegreater“we.”Preciselythisfinalpoint,namely,thatnotevenGodcanbeseenasthepureandsimple“I”towardwhichthehumanpersontends,isafundamentalaspectofthetheologicalconceptoftheperson.284
BycontinuingtofollowthecourseofthedialoguegivenintheScripturalwitness
andtheChurch’songoingappropriationofthenatureofthisdialoguebetweenGod
andhumanity,RatzingerseesagreatgiftgiventhroughtheChurchforthewhole
world.IntheofferingofthisanthropologytheChurchprovidesabasisforthegreat
dignityoftheindividualpersonandthenareasonforseeingtheindividualneveras
anindividualbutalwaysonemadeforlovingrelationshipwithothers.Indeed,
manyofthestrikinglycontemporaryquestionsaboutunityanddiversityinhuman
relationsresonatedeeply(andperhapssurprisingly)inthepresentationofthis
ChristologicalandTrinitariananthropology.Ratzingernotes,“TheChristianconcept
284Ibid.
136
ofGodhasasamatterofprinciplegiventhesamedignitytomultiplicityasto
unity.”285ThisunityandmultiplicitythatisattheheartoftheChristiantheologyof
GodisalsoessentialtothetheologyoftheChurch.Sincewecometoknowthis
harmonyofunityandmultiplicitymostperfectlyinthepersonofChrist,heisalsoat
thecenteroftheChurch’sself‐understanding.
Conclusion:ChristRevealedandTrulyKnownintheChurch
BeforemovingtoanexaminationofRatzinger’sunderstandingtheChurch
wepausetorecallwhathasbeensaidabouthisChristology.ThepersonofChrost,
asthefullnessofGod’srevelationofGodself,isthecenterpointofallofhuman
history.Byfollowingthenarrativeofsalvationhistory,throughtheResurrectionof
Christ,itbecomespossibletolookbackbothontheorderofcreationandtheorder
ofhistoryandre‐interpretallofitthroughaChristologicallens.ThetermLogos
startstotakeondifferentlayersofmeaningwhenthisisdone.TheLogosthrough
whomallthingsweremadeisnotmerelyaprincipleofreason,butratherbecomes
personalizedinthefigureofJesusofNazareth,shownmostperfectlyasloveitselfin
givinguphislifefreelyontheCrossoutofobedientlovetohisFatherandforthe
sakeoftheworld.Relational,dialogicallovethen,becomestheproperlensfor
understandingallofhistoryandevenbeingitself.SuchisthenatureofRatzinger’s
Christologyandsuchisthenecessarybasisforhisecclesiologyaswell.For
Ratzinger,ChrististhecenteroftheChurchinthattheveryessenceoftheChurchis
togathertoheartheWordfromGodspokentothemandinturntorespondtothat
Word.TheChurchlearnshowtodothisinsofarassheisconformedtothepersonof
285Ibid.
137
ChristwhoisboththeWordspokenfromGodtohumanityandisalsohumanity’s
perfectresponsefromhumanitybacktoGod.Bycomingtogetherinworship,then,
inhearingthewordproclaimedandbeinggiventheWordmadefleshinthe
Eucharist,themembersoftheChurchareinturnmotivatedbythisChristological
transformationtobeginspeakingthatsameWordoflovetotheworld.286Itisto
thisaspectofRatzinger’stheologicalvisionthatweturnnext.
286JosephRatzinger,CalledtoCommunion:UnderstandingtheChurchToday,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1996),13‐46.
138
Chapter4
ChurchastheLocusofDivineHumanDialogue
HavingexploredinthepreviouschapterthecontoursoftheChristologyof
JosephRatzinger,wenowturntohisecclesiology.Thetwoareintimatelylinked.
ManyoftheessentialelementsofhisChristologycanbetranslatedintohis
ecclesiology,including:1.thedialogicalandnarrativeunderstandingofChrist
unfoldinginhistorythatalwaystakespacewithinthebodyoftheChurch;2.howit
isthatChristwhorevealsGodtobedialogos287isalwaysknowninTrinitarian
relationalitywhichthenbecomestheessentialbasisforthestructureandidentityof
theChurchand,3.howChrist’spresenceandnatureisnotastaticbutadynamic
oneultimatelymadeknownintheeventoftheCrosswherethefullnessofloveis
madeknown.ItistheeventoftheCrossthatisexperiencedeveranewinthe
contextoftheliturgyoftheChurch.FortheChurch,then,thisfundamental
expressionoftheloveofChristpouredoutontheCrossandexperiencedagainand
againintheEucharisticliturgybecomesthecriterionbywhichshecanbejudgedas
beingtruetoherselfinhermissionintheworld.JustasthepersonofChristmust
beseeninlightofthehistheologyofRevelationastheWordofGodspokenbothin
particularityaswellasforauniversalaudienceinhistory,soitisthatthelifeofthe
Church,forRatzinger,followsthesame“onceonly”aswellas“forever”structureof
RevelationandChristology.288Inthischapter,Iwillattempttoexplicatethe
Christologicalshapeofhisecclesiology.IwilldescribehowRatzinger’sdialogical,
287JosephRatzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004),183.288JosephRatzinger,CalledtoCommunion:UnderstandingtheChurchToday,(SanFrancisco,IgnatiusPress,1996),123.
139
andnarrativewayofdoingChristologyandthereforeecclesiology,resonateswith
thetheologyoftheChurchofferedinLumenGentium.Inlightofthisconciliar
teaching,Iwillthenconcludethechapterwithasectionontheliturgyasthe
concreteexpressionofthetheologyoftheChurchthatthenprovidesthebasisfor
themissionoftheChurchintheworld.
I.ChurchasPlaceofDialogueBetweenGodandHumanity
Inanessayattemptingtolookbackuponandsynthesizethemeaningof
LumenGentium,JosephRatzingerrecallstwoimportantmomentsfromthe
Council.289First,PopeJohnXXIIIcalledtheCouncilwithoutproposingany
particularthemesforit,andyetasthebishopsbegantheirdeliberations,they
quicklycametoaconsensusthattheCounciloughttotakeup,primarily,thetheme
oftheChurch.290Thiswasdue,inpart,tothefactthatVaticanIwascutshortbefore
itcouldcompleteitsteachingonthematter.Asclearasitbecameearlyonthatthe
ChurchoughttobethefocusoftheCouncil,anothervoiceemergedwhichresonated
withthemembersaswell.WhilegatheredamongtheGermanbishopsconference
inanticipationoftheCouncil,theelderlybishopofRegensburgspokeupandurged
hisbrothersthattheymust,aboveall,“talkaboutGod.Thatiswhatismost
important.”291InRatzinger’sview,thisispreciselythemethodologytakenupbythe
CouncilFathers.AsheinterpretstheeventsoftheCouncilasawholeinhindsight,
heexplains,“theSecondVaticanCouncilcertainlydidintendtosubordinatewhatit
saidabouttheChurchtowhatitsaidaboutGodandsetitinthatcontext;itintended289JosephRatzinger,“TheEcclesiologyoftheConstitutionLumenGentium”inPilgrimFellowshipofFaith:TheChurchasCommunion(SanFrancisco,Calif.:IgnatiusPress,2005),123‐152.290Ibid.,123.291Ibid.,124.
140
topropoundanecclesiologythatwastheo‐logicalinthepropersense.”292Inso
doing,theChurch’smostauthoritativeteachingconfirmstheimportanceofseeing
ecclesiologicalconcernsalwaysinlightofthelargertheo‐logicalperspectiveofthe
Christianmysteryandattemptstoensurethatecclesiologicalconcernsarenot
swallowedupbyahorizonlimitedtosocialandpoliticalissues.Thisecclesiological
visionofferedinLumenGentiumverymuchresonateswithRatzinger’sownthought
onthesubjectandweturnnowtotheelementsinhisowntheologywhichareno
doubtshapedbyLumenGentium,aswellasperhapshowhisowntheologicalvision
wasonesourceofinfluencefortheCouncilFathersastheydiscernedthetheological
andChristologicalidentityoftheChurch.
LogosbasisofLumenGentium
Ashasalreadybeendiscussedinearlierchapters,theprimacyoftheWordin
thetheologyofJosephRatzingerbothcontributedtoandcontinuestobeshapedby
thedocumentsoftheSecondVaticanCouncil.HisownstudyofBonaventure’s
theologyofhistory,amongotherthings,helpedtoprovidefoundationsforthe
writingofDeiVerbumandtheChristocentrismoftheCatholicunderstandingof
Revelation.ThisChristocentrismalsofindsresonanceintheConstitutiononthe
Church,LumenGentium.HereweareremindedthatisnottheChurchafterall,but
Christ,theEternalWordmadefleshandcenterofhistory,whoisindeedthe“lumen
gentium.”Heisthe“vivumDeiverbumquaerensnos”‐thelivingWordofGodwho
292Ibid.,125.
141
seeksusout.293TheChurch,then,isthemeansbywhichthisverbumcontinuesto
bespokeninhumanhistory;itisthelocusofthecommunicationbetweenGodand
man.ImplicitinRatzinger’stheologyofRevelationbasedonthecommunicative
dynamicsof“theWord,”isatensionthathelpedtoanchortheteachingofthe
Councilinthetradition,aswellasopeningupthatsametraditiontodevelopmentin
thefuture.PreciselybecausetheWordisspokenfrometernity,thereisaunityand
stabilityaboutit.Atthesametime,becauseitisspokenformeternityinhistory,the
waytheWordisheardandappropriatedwithinthelifeoftheChurchwillvaryfrom
agetoageandculturetoculture.Thisisthebasisforanunderstandingof
Revelationthatischaracterizedasbothdevelopinghistoricallyandallthewhilein
continuitywithwhathadbeenrevealedandtaughtinthepast.
ThistensionwashighlightedattheCouncilnotonlywithrespectto
RevelationinDeiVerbum,butalsoforthecaseoftheChurchinLumenGentium.He
notedearlyonaftertheCouncil’sconclusionthatpreviousmoderndefinitionsofthe
ChurchwereoftenformulatedasnegativeargumentsagainsttheProtestantnotion
ofthe“invisible”Church.TheresponseoftheCatholicReformationintothe
twentiethcentury,Ratzingerexplains,hadoftenbeentostress,alternatively,the
institutionalandthereforevisiblenatureoftheChurch.294Consequently,muchof
thetheologyoftheChurchhadcomeacrossasratherstaticandcommunicatedin
propositionalterms.Thetextthatwasultimatelyadopted,Ratzingernotes,
293W.J.Wicks,Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:AChapterintheLifeofPopeBenedictXVI(NewOrleans,LA:LoyolaUniversity,2007),9.WickstakesthisphrasefromadraftofadocumentcollaboratedonbyRahnerandRatzinger,servingasanalternativetotheoriginalschemaonRevelationearlyonintheCouncil.HeattributesthisparticularphrasingtoRatzinger.294JosephRatzinger,TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,2009),70.
142
embracesthe“biblicalpolarities”ofboththesacramentalandcharismaticnotionof
the“peopleofGod.”295Byundertakingamorebiblicalandthereforenarrative
approachtoecclesiology,LumenGentiumisabletoaccountfortheongoing
developmentoftheidentityandmissionofthepeopleofGod‐theChurch‐aswellas
itsfoundationintheconcreteandparticularhistoryofthelife,deathand
resurrectionofChrist.Hereisanotherexpressionofthedialogicalandhistorical
natureofRatzinger’sunderstandingoftheology,thistime,asitpertainstothe
natureoftheChurch.TheChurch,hesays,isalwaysmovingtowardGodwhocalls.
Itisnotfrozeninonestructureofthepast,butrootedinits“changelesscenter”of
thepersonofChrist.AndyettheChristcontinuesto“come,”openandspeakingin
history.296TheChurch,inthisChristologicalpatternofidentity,isthepeopleofGod
gatheredtobeopentothiscomingandinrespondingtothiscomingandspeakingof
theChristtheydiscoverandinsodoing,discoversandrealizesitstrueidentity.
II.ChristologicalPneumatologicalTensionoftheChurch
AspartofRatzinger’sanalysisofthetheologyoftheChurchgivenatVatican
II,herecallstheessentialbiblicalpillarsofthelifeoftheChurchgiveninthesecond
chapterofActsoftheApostles.Thisanalysisleadshimtotracethreetheological
aspectsoftheChurchthatarepresentinActsandwhicharehighlightedinanew
wayinLumenGentium.HeseestheChurchinActstoberevealedas
pneumatological,dynamicandliturgical.HeexplainsthattheLucanvisionofthe
ChurchasgiveninActsoftheApostlesrevealsthat“Firstofallwearefacedhere
295Ibid.,74.296Ibid.,76
143
withapneumatologicalecclesiology‐itistheSpiritwhomakestheChurch.Weare
facedwithadynamicecclesiologyofsalvationhistory,ofwhichthedimensionof
catholicityisanessentialpart.Finally,wearefacedwithaliturgicalecclesiology:
theassemblyreceivesthegiftoftheHolySpiritintheactofpraying.”297Similarto
therejectionoftheneo‐scholasticcategoriesusedtotrytoexplainDivine
RevelationinthewritingofDeiVerbum,whenitcametothedeliberationsonthe
Church,therewasasimilardissatisfactionwiththeneo‐scholasticframeworkfor
understandingtheChurch.298Aboveall,thestaticnotionoftheChurchthatwas
definedinmorescholasticandinstitutionaltermspriortoVaticanIIwassetaside
foramorehistorical,narrativeanddynamicunderstandingoftheChurch’snature.
RatzingernotesthatPopePiusXII’sencyclicalMysticiCorporiswasanimportant
momentinthedevelopmentoftheChurch’steachingaboutherownnaturethat
pavedthewayforLumenGentium.InMysticiCorporis,heexplains,“theChurchis
seenasdeterminedbypneumatologicalaswellasChristologicalelements;the
Churchischarismaticaswellassacramentalinnature.”299Addingthe
pneumatologicaltensiontotheChristologicalunderstandingoftheChurch300made
foranecclesiologythatnecessarilyopeneduptothecurrenthistoricalandecclesial
contextmorefullyandwasalso,therefore,moreabletoengagethedemandsofthe
newspiritofecumenicalrelations.RatzingerdescribestheChurchasthe
297Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,62‐63.298Ratzinger,TheologicalHighlights,71‐79.299Ibid.,74.300Ibid.,68.RatzingernotestheimportancegiventothispneumatologicalrealityoftheChurchintheemphasisgiventoitbyPopePaulVIinhisopeningaddresstothereconvenedCouncilinitssecondsessiononSeptember29,1963.
144
Christologicalpresenceinhistory,301butbecauseofthepneumatologicalaspectof
theChurch,astheBodyofChrist,itisalsonotidenticalwithChristeither.302
ThisunderstandingofChrist’spresenceinhistoryastheChurchcenteredon
thepersonofChristandyetvivifiedbytheSpiritis,forRatzinger,theessential
aspectofthedevelopmentofecclesiologyatVaticanII.Thebasisforsuchamanner
ofexplainingRevelationinhistoryandtheChurchasacarrierofRevelationis
preciselytheinnerTrinitariantensionofChristologicalandPneumatological
dynamicsinsalvationhistory.WhileChrististheabsolutecenterofhistoryandis
theOnethroughwhomallcreationcameaboutandtheonetowardwhomallof
salvationhistoryisoriented,theHolySpiritistheOneinwhomthesedevelopments
unfold.AsthehistoryoftheChurchunfolds,itisalwaysmovingfromthecenterof
history‐theeventoftheIncarnationandPaschalMysteryofChrist.YettheChurch
isalsovivifiedandexpressesitselfinnewwaysbytheongoingmovementofthe
Spirit.TheSpirit’smovement,however,isnotcharacterizedbya“pneumatic
anarchy,”303butratheralwaysunfoldsinawaythatreferstheChurchbacktoits
sourceoflifeinChrist.Thereisthen,bothasenseofbeinganchoredinhistorical
particularityoftheChristeventandsimultaneouslyanopennesstothefuture
inherentthatisinherenttothecharacteroftheChurch.304Acknowledgingthe
tensionoftheChristologicalandPneumatologicalcharacteristicsoftheChurch,
then,opensupamoredynamicunderstandingofthenatureandmissionofthe
301JosephRatzinger,OntheWaytoJesusChrist(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005),77.302Ratzinger,TheologicalHighlights,74.303Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,119.304Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,178‐187.
145
Churchinthemodernworld.ThiswastheaimoftheSecondVaticanCouncil,as
Ratzingerseesit.
IwouldarguethatRatzinger’sappropriationofBonaventure’stheologyof
historyisimportanttorecallinthisregard.Itseemsthathisunderstandingofthe
PneumatologicalaspectoftheChurchprovidesawayofaccountingforthefactthat
theChurchbyitsverynatureisalwaysunfoldinginhistory.TheoneLogosthat
begetsmanyseminainsalvationhistoryisarealitythataccountsforbothcontinuity
andchangeinthelifeoftheChurch.Assuch,theChurchisalsoalwayseither
developingorrunningtheriskofcorruptingandthereforeisalwaysinneedof
reformandrenewal.TheCouncil’sshiftingawayfromthelanguageoftheChurchas
thesocietasperfecta305createdaspaceforgreaterengagementwiththosebeyond
her“borders.”ThepneumatologicalnatureoftheChurchthatwasemphasizedalso
openedupanecumenicalhorizonthatmadepossiblenewavenuesofdialogueand
reconciliation.EarlierconceptionsoftheChurchthatweremorestatic,heexplains,
gavetheincorrectimpressionoftheabsoluteidentityoftheChurchwiththeperson
ofChrist.Thisimpressionthereforeestablishedakindofstalematewithrespectto
dialoguewithotherecclesialandreligiouscommunitieswherebytheonly
possibilityfor“development”wasconversionofotherstothefullnessoftruthinthe
CatholicChurch,orelseremaining“inerror”andnecessarilyoutsidefull
communionwithChrist.ThisconceptionofthenatureoftheChurchriskedwhat
PaulVIcalled“ecclesio‐monism,”makingoutoftheChurchakindofidolthatcould
305LeoXIII,ImmortaleDei,(NewYork,AmericaPress,1936),#10.Thisencyclicalwasfirstpromulgatedin1885.
146
obscurethelivingvitalityoftheChurchthatisbetterunderstoodasapilgrimpeople
sojourningalways“ontheway”todeeperdialogueandcommunionwiththeliving
Godinhistory.306TheCouncilsetawholenewtrajectoryforecclesiologyinmoving
beyondthestaticunderstandingoftheChurchdefinedontologicallyastheperfect
societyidentifiedsolelywiththefigureofChrist.Inembracinganecclesiological
visionmorebiblicallybased,bothChristologicalandPneumatologicalincharacter,
fulfilledandshapedliturgicallyandthereforeexpressinganongoingdynamismin
history,LumenGentiumbreathednewlifeintotheChurch’sself‐understandingthat
wasmoredynamic,Iargue,preciselybecauseitwasmoredialogicalandrelational
innature.JosephRatzingerbothcontributedtothisnewvisionandalsocontinues
tobeshapedbyithimself.
DominusIesus
AsimilartensioninunderstandingtheChurchemergedinmorerecentyears.
Thistime,however,Ratzingerfoundhimselfontheoppositesideofthedebate,one
mightsay.IfbeforetheCouncil,hewasamongthosearguing,withPaulVIagainst
theecclesio‐monismthatidentifiedtheChurchwiththeBodyofChrist,now,atthe
turnofthenewmillennium,hewasattemptingtopreserveanyconnectionatall
betweentheChurchandChrist.Asthedebatehasunfolded,dependinguponhis
interlocutorsandhowthebalancehadshiftedinhiseyes,itseemsthatRatzinger
hasstressedthePneumatologicalaspectoftheChurchmoreintheimmediatewake
oftheChurchandtheChristologicalaspectmoreseveraldecadeslater.The
306Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol.3,162.
147
publicationofthenote,DominusIesus,307fromtheCongregationoftheDoctrineof
theFaith,undertheleadershipofthenCardinalRatzingerin2000,broughtwithita
bitterbacklashagainsttheassertionoftheunictyofbothChristandtheChurchin
theeconomyofsalvation.PerhapsinthefortyyearssinceVaticanII,theologians
andmanyinsideandoutsidetheChurchhadbecomesoaccustomedtothe
PneumatologicalcharacteroftheChurch(apropositionthathadmetwithsuch
resistancefrommanyattheCouncil),thatnowthereseemedtobeakindof
forgettingofherChristologicalcharacter.308
Inanessayrecallingtheexperienceofthe‘trainwreck’ofthereceptionof
DominusIesus,Ratzingerattemptedtoarticulateinmoretheologicaltermsthe
canonicalandpastoralpointsmadeinthedocument.309Underlyingthisdefenseis
hiscustomaryapproachtoaquestionbasedonthetwo‐folddynamicoftheLogos
thatbothrevealsdivinerealityandinsomewaysalsokeepsithidden.Herefersto
thebasisofthetitleofthedocumentasthatoftheconfessionoffaithprovidedbySt.
PaulinFirstCorinthians,“JesusistheLord”(1Cor12:3).Hecallsthisprofession
presentfromtheinceptionoftheChurchas“awordthathasbeengiventousbythe
HolySpiritandisthewordoftheHolySpirit.”310ProfessionoffaithinJesusasthe
WordmadefleshwhoisLordofcreationandhistoryisaprofessionthatismade
307CongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith,DeclarationDominusIesus:OntheUnicityandSalvificUniversalityofJesusChristandtheChurch(VaticanCity:LibreriaEditriceVaticana,2000).308Seeforexample:JoséOscarBeozzoandGiuseppeRuggieri,TheEcumenicalConstitutionofChurches(London:SCMPress,2001);StephenJ.Pope,CharlesC.Hefling,editors,SicEtNon:EncounteringDominusIesus(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,2002);EdmundChia,TowardsaTheologyofDialogue:Schillebeeckx'sMethodasBridgebetweenVatican'sDominusIesusandAsia'sFABCTheology:AScientificEssayinTheology(Bangkok,Thailand:EdmundChia,2003);HermannHäring,JanetMartinSoskice,andFelixWilfred,LearningfromOtherFaiths(London:SCMPress,2003).309Ratzinger,OntheWaytoJesusChrist,55‐78.310Ibid.,55.
148
possibleonthepartoftheChurchbythepoweroftheHolySpiritwhointurnpoints
totheWord.
ThisrelianceonthecategoryoftheLogosisproblematicforsome
contemporarytheologians.ThomasRausch,forexample,lamentswhatheseesas
Ratzinger’sPlatonismthatisguilty,inhisviewof“privilegingideaovertheconcrete
andtheempirical.”311RauschsumsupthecritiquesofothersbasedonRatzinger’s
placinglogosoverethoswhenitcomestotheChurch,whichisanapproach,they
wouldsay,thatfailstotakehistoryseriously.RauschcitesJamesCorkeryand
WalterKasperinthiscritique,accusingRatzingerofan“idealist”ecclesiology.312
Thiscritiquefails,however,toappreciatethenatureofRatzinger’stheologyof
historythat,whileithasasitssourcetheeternalLogosthatisbeyondhistory,isonly
reallycommunicatedinhistory.ItispreciselytheprimacyoftheLogos,infact,that
makesitpossibleforhimtodevelopatheologyoftheChurchthatisutterlyreliant
onhistory.Withhistoryhavingitssourceinthatwhichisbeyondhistory,it
becomespossibletodiscerninhistoryacoherentnarrativethatisalwaysunfolding.
Withoutthistranscendentsourceofhistory,however,thematterofhistoryitself
quicklybecomessimplyaseriesofeventsthatareunconnectedwithoneanother,
andmerelyinterestingitemsfromthepastthatremainlockedawayinthepastand
havenorealbearingonthepresentandthefuture.Thisisanimportant,ongoing
themeinRatzinger’stheology,butagain,inapastoralsetting,heisabletoexplain
itsimportancewithgreatesteffectinthemidstofahomily.Indescribingthe
311ThomasP.Rausch,PopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontoHisTheologicalVision(NewYork:PaulistPress,2009),44.312Ibid.
149
inherentlyhistoricalnatureoftheliturgicalseasonofAdvent,heexplains,“thereis
noperiodinhistoryforwhichGodwouldbejustthepastwhichalreadyliesbehind
usandhasalreadybeendone.Onthecontrary,forallofus,Godistheoriginfrom
whichwecomeandyetstillalsothefuturetowardwhichwearegoing.”313We
discoverthischaracterofGod’slordshipoverhumanhistoryonlybywayof
encounterwiththeWordmadefleshwhocomestousintheIncarnation.Onlyfrom
withinwhatsomecallhis“idealist”theologythatplacespriorityontheLogos,then,
doesdialoguewiththelivingGodbecomepossiblewithinhistoryandthewholeof
historyistherebyrenderedaccessibleandintelligiblebecauseofit.
EcclesiaSemperReformandaEst
BecausetheLogosisspokeninhistoryinhumanwordsandinahuman
context,ultimatelyinChristandtheChurchthatcarriesthepresenceofChrist,there
isbothparticularityanduniversalityattheheartoftheidentityoftheChurch.This
tensionaccountsforthesimultaneousclaimsthattheChurchisnecessaryfor
salvationinitsuniquecharacterofholinessandatthesametimeshecarriessin
withinherandisalways,therefore,inneedofreform.Inaddressingtheproblemof
theroleofChristandtheChurchinsalvation,Ratzingeraffirmstheunicityand
necessityofbothinsalvationhistory.Heexplains,“Forthechurchtobethemeans
ofsalvationforall,itdoesnothavetoextenditselfvisiblytoall,buthasinsteadits
essentialroleinfollowingChrist,hewhoisuniquely‘theone,’andthereinthe
churchisthelittleflock,throughwhichGodhoweverintendstosave‘themany.’The
313Benedict,WhatitMeanstobeaChristian:ThreeSermons(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2006),36‐37.
150
church’sserviceisnotcarriedoutbyallhumanbeings,butisindeedcarriedoutfor
allofthem.”314Itispreciselybecauseofthedialogicalandhistoricalnatureofthe
ChurchthattheChurchisnevercomplete.Itisalwaysinneedofbeingreformedby
allowingthepersonofChristtobeatthecenterofitslifeandself‐understanding.315
Becauseherself‐expressionisalwaysunfoldinginhistory,theChurchisalways
expressinghertrueidentityandatthesametime,alwaysbeingcorruptedand
drawnawayfromthedialoguewiththeLordthatactualizeshertrueidentity.In
Ratzinger’sview,itseems,theChurchasawholeisneverstaticallyperfect,but
ratherperfectonlyinthecontextofthehistoricaldynamismthatisfulfilledinthe
on‐goingdialoguewiththeLivingGod.ThosewithintheChurchareoftendrawn
awayfromthisdialogicalrelationshipwiththeLordandturninonthemselvesin
sin.Butineveryage,therearethosewhoheroicallyanddramaticallymanifestthe
fullnessofthisdialogicalrelationshipwiththeLord.MaximilianHeimexplainsthat
inRatzinger’sthoughtthesehistoricalfigureswhocarryoutsuchataskarethe
saintsandtheyplayanindispensableroleinRatzinger’snarrative,historically
unfoldinganddialogicalecclesiology.316Thesaintsarethosewhostandoutas
lightsindarknesswhospeciallyreflectthelightofChrist.Theylettheir
relationshipswithChristreflectthroughthemandcallthosearoundthemtogreater
faith,hopeandlove.Theyare,indeed,atthecenterofthetrueidentityofthe
Churchinsofarastheyconstituteher“realmajority.”317Theyaretheconcrete
314Ratzinger,“VicariousRepresentation,”TranslatedbyJaredWicks,SJ,2011.Publicationpending.315Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,40.316Heim,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology,396.317Ibid.Cf.,BenedictandPeterSeewald,SaltoftheEarth:ChristianityandtheCatholicChurchattheEndoftheMillenium(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1997),189.
151
expressionsoftheChurchthatisalwaysbeingreformedineveryagebyremaining
indialoguewithChrist.
TheSaintsastheNormativeMajorityoftheChurch
TheChurch,then,forRatzinger,isnotagroupofactivistswhocometogether
to“setparishlifeinmotion.”Itisnotcomprisedofthosewhoholdecclesialoffices.
AllthesebelongtotheChurch,butthe“radiusofthe‘company’intowhichweenter
byfaithreachesfarther‐beyondthelimitsofdeath…Thesaintsarethetrue
normativemajoritybywhichweorientourselves.Letusadheretothem…[for]they
translatethedivineintothehuman,eternityintotime.”318Thisongoingtranslation
ofeternityintotimeistheechoinhistoryoftheWordmadeflesh.Thesaintsare,to
borrowfromBonaventure’stheologyofhistory,unique“semina”whohavebeen
shapedbyandsprungfromanintimatedialogicalunionwiththeOneLogos.They
inturnreflectthelightofandjoythatcomesfromthisunionandprovidenotonly
encouragementandmodelforthoseintheChurch,buttheyserveasalighttothose
outsidetheChurch,intherestoftheworld.
Bywayofthesaints,then,othersareabletoimitateandbedrawnintothe
samerelationship,thesamefriendship,withChristastheycametoenjoyand
therebyareabletobemadeintosaintsthemselves.Inastrikinglytendermanner,
speakingtoagroupofschoolchildrenfromaschoolnearbyhissummerresidence
atCastelGandolfo,PopeBenedictspelledoutthepossibilityofthisfriendshipwith
Godthatisfundamentaltotheidentityofthesaints.Theprocessbeginsbylistening
toGod’sWord‐thatfundamentalcharacteristicoftheChurchasawhole:
318Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,154.
152
Dearchildren,yougotoschoolandyoulearnnaturally,andIamrecallingthatseventy‐sevenyearshavenowpassedsinceIbeganschool.Ilivedinasmallvillageofthreehundredinhabitants,…yetwelearnedtheessentialthings.Mostimportantly,welearnedtoreadandwrite.Ithinkitisagreatthingtobeabletoreadandwrite,becauseinthiswaywecanknowotherpeople’sideas,readnewspapersandbooks.Wecanalsoknowwhatwaswrittentwothousandormoreyearsago;wecanknowthespiritualcontinentsoftheworldandcommunicatewithoneanother.Aboveallthereisoneextraordinarything:Godwroteabook,Hespoketoushumanbeings,findingpeopletowritethebookcontainingtheWordofGod.Readingthatbook,wecanreadwhatGodsaystous.Atschoolyoulearneverythingyouneedforlife.YoualsolearntoknowGod,toknowJesusandthusyoulearnhowtolivewell.Atschoolyoumakealotoffriendsandthisisabeautifulthingbecauseinthiswayyouformonebigfamily,butamongourbestfriends,thefirstwemeetandknowshouldbeJesusWhoisafriendtoeveryoneandtrulyshowsusthepathoflife.”319
ThispathtoholinessthatRatzingerdescribeswhichisaccessibleeventothe
smallestofchildren(perhapsespeciallytothem!)ischaracterizedbyapostureof
humilityandofreceptivitytowardGod’sword.Thismustalsobethestartingpoint
foreventhemostsophisticatedtheologian.Hedescribesasthepreconditionforall
oftheology,infact,theconversionofthetheologianintoa“newsubject”the“I”of
whichisnolongeran“autonomoussubjectstandinginitself”butratherthe“I”who
“hasreleaseditsgriponitselfinorderthentoreceiveitselfanewandtogetherwith
agreater‘I.’”320Thesaintthatoffersamodelforthisconversionisimportantforthe
theologianbutmoreimportantlyforthewholeChurch.ForRatzinger,tothedegree
thattheChurch’smembersarewillingtobeginwiththispostureofhumilityand
receptivitytothewordofthe“greaterI”andnotassertherownagenda,shetruly
becomesherself.
319Benedict,AngelusMessage,CastelGandolfo,23Sep2010.320Ratzinger,TheNatureandMissionofTheology,51.
153
ObediencetotheWord
ThisunderstandingoftheChurchasfulfilledintheactofhumilitythatallows
the“IofChrist”toshapethetrueidentityoftheChurchbecomescontroversialwhen
itisseeninlightofthequestionofauthoritythat,ofcourse,causessomuchtension
insomanycornersoftheChurchtoday.Butthisobediencetoauthoritythatis
calledforinhis“communio”visionoftheChurchisneveranabsolutistand
authoritarianqualitythatsomanyfear.ItiscleartheimportanceoftheLogosin
thisregardthatprovidesabasisforbothauthenticauthorityandtruthitselfthatis
expressedaslove.Thisisafarcryfromthemodernunderstandingofauthoritythat
hasbecomeseparatedfromtruthandloveandismanifestedonlyaspower.
RatzingerrecallsthewayThomasHobbesfamouslyputit,“Auctoritas,nonveritas
fecitlegem”‐power,nottruth,makeslaw.321Intheecclesiologicalvisionof
Ratzingercharacterizedbyobedienceoutoflove,authoritylooksverydifferent.It
isalwaystobeseeninlightoftheverysamedialogicalrelationshipoffaithandlove
thatisatthecoreofGod’srevelationofhimselftohisbelovedchildren.Heexplains,
“AuthorityintheChurchstandsonfaith.TheChurchcannotconceiveforherself
howshewantstobeordered.Shecanonlytryevermoreclearlytounderstandthe
innercalloffaithandtolivefromfaith.”322Heridentityisgiventoherinsofarasshe
allowsherselftobeshapedbythisdialoguewithGod,thatbeginswithGod’s
initiativeandcanonlyberespondedtoinaspiritofhumbleobediencethatcomes
fromlovingtrust.Thisreceptionofauthenticecclesialidentityisultimatelyfostered
321Benedict,JosephRatzingerinCommunio(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2010),111‐112.322JosephRatzinger,ImagesofHope:MeditationsonMajorFeasts,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2006)34.
154
inprayer.ThispostureofreceptivitytotheWordisattheheartofwhathascometo
beknownas“communioecclesiology”,amostprominentadvocateofwhichhas
beenJosephRatzinger.Itistoanuncoveringofthebasiccontoursofthis
ecclesiologicalmethodologythatwenowturn.
III.Ratzinger’s“CommunioEcclesiology”
Ratzingerdescribesinhisownwordsthefactorsinvolvedintheemergence
of“communioecclesiology”asawayoftryingtointerpretwhattheChurchtaughtat
VaticanII.Heexplains,withtheaidofhindsightthat“perhapssincethe
extraordinarysynodof1985,whichwassupposedtodrawupakindofbalance
sheetforthetwentyyearssincetheCouncil,therehasbeenanewattempttosum
upthewholeoftheCouncil’secclesiologyinonebasicconcept,whichdominatesthe
discussion,underthetermcommunio‐ecclesiology.”323Heacknowledgesthateven
thoughtheterm“communio”doesnotfigureprominentlyinthetextsoftheCouncil,
itisusefulneverthelessasaconceptthatsynthesizesitsecclesiologicalvision.Itis
alsodescriptiveofhisownecclesiologicalmodelthathehadcultivatedinhisown
careerpriortotheCouncil.TraceyRowlandarguesthewholeofRatzinger’s
ecclesiologymustbeseenasa“synthesisofanumberofcurrents.Therearestrong
resonancesofGuardini,deLubacandvonBalthasar.”324Shetracesthesesourcesof
anemerging“communioecclesiology”intheearlypartofthetwentiethcentury
initiallythroughthethoughtofRomanoGuardini,whostressedtheprimacyofthe
experienceoftheChurchatworship,especiallyintheEucharisticliturgy,asthe
323Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,129.324Rowland,Ratzinger'sFaith:TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),103.
155
sourceoflifeandidentityfortheChurch.HenrideLubacfurtherexploredthis
visionoftheChurchasacommunioofpeople“made”fromtheEucharistandthen
identifiedaccordingtoapluralityofcharismswithintheonebodyoftheChurch.
RowlandalsonotesthatHansUrsvonBalthasar,inusinghishighlyliteraryand
narrativeapproachtotheologyalsodidmuchinthewakeoftheCounciltogiveflesh
tothisvisionoftheChurch.325
Theinternationaljournal,Communiocametobeacenterpieceandaplatform
foradeepeningofthismodeoftheologicalreflectionwithaconceptionofthe
Churchnotmerelyasonemoresociologicalentitywiththecategoriesofpoliticsand
powerasitsprimarycharacteristic,butratheraccordingtothisliturgicaland
multifacetedmosaicofmanygiftsbuildinguponebody(1Cor12:4‐14).Joseph
Ratzingersoonbecameapartofthistheologicalmovement,inpartasawayof
continuingthenewtheologicaldevelopmentsfromtheCouncilandsimultaneously
realizingalmostimmediatelythatseriousproblemswereemerginginthe
interpretationofthosedevelopmentsinthewidertheologicalcommunity.326
Hesituateswhatheperceivedastheproblematicdimensionsofecclesiology
asitwasemergingaftertheCouncil,asaproblemofhowtointerpretatermfrom
LumenGentiumthathadbecomeakindofsloganseenthroughthelensof
contemporarypoliticsandsociology.Hewrites,“ThecrisisconcerningtheChurch
asitisreflectedinthecrisisconcerningtheconcept‘PeopleofGod’,isa‘crisisabout
God’:itistheresultofleavingoutwhatismostessential.Whatthenremainsis
325Ibid.,84‐85.326JosephRatzinger,“Communio:AProgram”inCommunio:InternationalCatholicReview,19,no.3(Fall1992),436‐449.
156
merelyadisputeaboutpower.Thereisalreadyenoughofthatelsewhereinthe
world‐wedonotneedtheChurchforthat.”327Andsotheprimarytaskof
ecclesiologyistorecoverandretainthetheo‐logicaldimensionofitsstudyandfrom
withinthathorizon,toseethatitstranscendentnatureisnottantamountto
oppressionof“thepeople”,butoffindingtheauthenticsetofrelationshipsthat
alonecantrulyliberatethepeopleastheyfindthemselvesbelongingtoandbeing
lovedbytheGodtowhomtheybelong.
Anothermorerecentchallengeinecclesiologyisnotsomuchoneofthe
confusionofaMarxisthermeneuticforunderstandingthenotionofthe“peopleof
God”,butratheronecharacterizedbythechallengeofsensitivitytopluralism.This
senseoftheChurchascommunioreliesinthevariousappropriationsoftheterm,on
thebasicfactoftheunityoftheChurch.TheChurch,inthisvisionisessentiallyone
eventhoughtherearevariousmanifestationsofheressencebothamongthosein
communionwithRomeaswellasotherChristiancommunitiesoutsidethat
communion.ContrarytotheunderstandingoftheChurchfundamentallypluralistic
andonlysecondarilyunitedfromthatplurality,hearguesforthe“ontological
priority”oftheoneuniversalChurch.Heexplainsthebiblicalbasisofthisvisionof
theunityoftheChurch:
ThefactthattheoneChurchisatheologicalentity,andnotthe
subsequentempiricalunitingofmanychurches,certainlyemerges
convincinglyfromtheNewTestamentitself…Thistheologicalpriority
iswhatismeantbythe“ontologicalpriority”,whichtheFathersthen
327Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,129.
157
portray‐followinganalogousJewishtraditions‐asakindofpre‐
existenceoftheChurch….Whatisessential,however,isnotthe
temporalpriority,whichisanimage,butthequestionofinner
(=theological‐“ontological”)precedence.328
HegoesontoexplainthattheEvangelistLukeoffersthevisionthatfromthetwelve
apostles,variousChurchesemergebutthattheycomefromtheoneChurchthathas
theologicalorontologicalpriority.FollowingthenarrativeoftheNewTestament,
then,“First,theChurchasawholeisthere;andthensheformsindividualChurches;
anditisnottheindividualChurchesthatgraduallycomeintooneChurch.”329
Ratzinger’secclesiologicalvisionthen,allowsfordiversityinthelifeoftheChurch
whileretainingitsbasisinoneofthefourtraditionalmarksoftheChurch,namely,
unity.Hence,yetanotheroneofthechallengesincurrentecclesiologyisresponded
toinRatzinger’smethodologyasoneofcommuniobasedontheclosefollowingof
thebiblicalnarrativethatestablishesthefundamentalcharacteristicsoftheChurch
today.
Ashasbeennoted,intheefforttoofferanalternativetothestaticand
propositionaldefinitionsoftheChurch,Ratzingerconsistentlyfavorsnarrativeand
descriptivevisionsoftheChristianmysterythatunveiltheessenceofrelationality
atitscenter.Heconsciouslyusestheterm“communio”tocapture,though
admittedlyimperfectly,thevariousrelationsanddynamicsthatmakeupthe
Church’sessence.Recallingthreeofthefourtraditional“marksoftheChurch”,he
328PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,249.329Ibid.
158
notesspecificallyherhistoricalgroundednessintheapostolictradition,theholiness
oftheprayingChurchandtheunityofherthroughoutitall.330Theseessential
marksareseenwithspecialclaritybypayingcloseattentiontothedynamicsofthe
liturgy.Heseesgreatsignificanceintheconcretefocusandstartingpointfor
deliberationsatVaticanIIontheliturgy(SacrosanctumConcilium)astheon‐going
locusofthe“making”oftheChurch.Focusonacertainprimacygiventotheliturgy
asthesourceandsummitofChristianlifehasalsomadepossibleamoredynamic
senseoftheChurchalwaysbeinglivedoutalwaysanew.Heexplainstheperhaps
unintendedgracegivenattheCouncilastheFatherstookuptherenewalofthe
liturgyasthefirstorderofbusiness:“Therewerepracticalreasonsforthefactthat
thiswasthefirst.Yetlookingback,wehavetosaythatthismadegoodsensein
termsofthestructureoftheCouncilasawhole:worship,adorationcomesfirst.”331
SituatingherselfbeforeGodasapeoplemadefirstandforemostforworship,then
shedslightonotheraspectsoftheChurch’sself‐understandingthatwouldbelater
takenupinDeiVerbum,LumenGentiumandfinallyinGaudiumetSpes.For
Ratzinger,thispostureoftheworshippingChurchasfundamentaltoheridentity
alsoprovidesagroundingfortheessentiallyrelationalandthereforeunfolding
natureofheridentityasiscapturedparticularlyinLumenGentium’suseofthe
imageoftheChurchasPilgrim.Underthisimage,Ratzingernotedsoonafterthe
Council,theChurchcametobeunderstoodas“incompleteandcontinually
330Ibid.,61.331Ibid.,126.
159
journeyingwithandtowardGodwhoconstantlycalledouttoit.”332This
multifacetedsenseoftheChurch‐beingbasedalwaysintheabsolutecenterofthe
ChristeventwhilealsobeingledinevernewwaysbytheHolySpirit‐isconstantly
concretizedandmadenewinthecelebrationoftheliturgy.Indeed,Ratzinger
argues,followingGuardini,itispreciselyintheactionoftheliturgythattheChurch
“subsists”andfulfillshertrueanddeepestidentity.333Intheliturgy,theChurch
realizeshertrueself.
BiblicalFoundationandLiturgicalExpressionofCommunio
Ratzinger’sdecisiontosettleontheterm“communio”tobestdescribethe
characteroftheChurchisbasedmostimportantlyonthescripturalwitness.He
seesboththeliturgicalandChristologicallinkstoecclesiologyinthefoundational
biblicalsourceofActsoftheApostles.Hecallsthisbookakindof“first
ecclesiology.”334Thecharacterofthisecclesiologyisa“narrative”oneasopposedto
aconceptualone.335Specifically,hereliesonActs2:42wherewearegivenfour
essentialaspectsoftheChurch’sownself‐understanding:“Theywerecontinually
devotingthemselvestotheapostles'teachingandtofellowship,tothebreakingof
breadandtoprayer.”AsthesebasicelementsareechoedintheDidacheaswell,it
becomesclearforRatzingerthatChristremainspresentintheChurchinthis
mannerthatScriptureandtheearliesttraditionindicate.Theconsequencesforthis
todayaresignificantinthatthesefourpillarsofecclesiallifemark,forRatzinger,the
332Ratzinger,TheologicalHighlights,76.333Ratzinger,GodisNearUs:TheEucharist,theHeartofLife,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2003),121‐129.334Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,61.335Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,41.
160
essentialformoftheChurchfromthebeginningandthereforedelimittheessential
natureoftheChurchtodayeventhoughinmanyways,developmentandchangehas
occurredinherexpressionoftheseessentialaspects.
RelationofChristandtheChurch:LiturgicalConfirmationofaBiblicalVision
Ratzinger’sinsistenceonplacingthebiblicalfoundationsoftheChurchatthe
foreguaranteesacertainChristologicalbasisforecclesiology,whichissorely
neededinthecurrentcontext,hebelieves.ForRatzinger,thisisperhapsthecrucial
challengethatfacescontemporaryecclesiology,namelythepropensitytowarda
separationfromitstruebasisinChristology.TheChurchcanonlybehertrueself,
insofarassheistheauthenticplaceofencounterofthepersonofChrist.Heexplains,
“InbothhersacramentalandinherproclamationoftheWord,theChurch
constitutesadistinctivesubjectwhosememorypreservestheseeminglypastword
andactionofJesusasapresentreality.”336Butthisisnoteasilyrecognizedtoday.
ThemodernseparationofJesusfromtheChurch,heexplains,isinpartaproductof
aProtestantexegeticaltraditionthatshapedabiblicalunderstandingoftheChurch
basedonopposingthethemesofpriestandprophetintheOldandNewTestaments.
ThebiasbehindthisexegeticaltraditionhasalltoooftensetupJesusasthemodern
liberalprophetrisingupandfreeingthepeopleofGodfromthesterileand
oppressiveinstitutionofcultic,priestlyreligion.337Thisdivideintensifiedwithlater
Marxist‐inspiredstrandsofliberationtheologywhereinJesuscametobeseenasa
“revolutionary”risingupagainstthe“enslavingpowerofinstitutions”ofhisday,
336Ibid.,19.337SeehisdescriptionoftheconceptionofJesuscomingfromtheheightofliberalProtestantisminAdolfvonHarnackinIntroductiontoChristianity,196‐202.
161
whichareinturnassociatedwiththeChurchinmoderntimes.338However,asmore
recentexegeticalinterpretationshaveemerged,discoverieshavebeenmadethat
recognizetheculticandliturgicalcharacteroftheearlyChurchthathadJesusvery
muchasthecenterofitsculticandliturgicalworship.Inlightofthislinkbetween
exegesisandthecentralityoftheliturgyasasourceforunderstandingChristand
theChurch,Ratzingeracknowledgestheimportantcontributionsmadebyeastern
theologiansforpreservinginthemodernerathefocusontheliturgicalcharacterof
theChurch.339InarrivingatthisperspectiveoftherelationshipbetweenChristand
theChurchwithinthebiblicalwitness,heacknowledgesthegreatinfluenceofthe
workofvariousOrthodoxtheologiansontheeveoftheCouncilinhelpingtoshape
hisownunderstandingofthespiritualnatureoftheChurchthatisgroundedinthe
concreteliturgicalcontext.Theliturgyasthelocustheologicusaccountsforthe
varioussetsofrelationsthatmakeuptheChurch.340Henotestheimportanceofthe
term“communio”andhowithastakenonmoresignificanceinlightofdeficiencies
inmodernlanguagethatmakeitdifficulttofullycommunicatethe“sense…ofthe
linguisticandconceptualframeworkoftheBibleandofthegreattradition.”341He
arguesthattheterm“communio”captureswelltherelationalityofthemembersof
theChurchamongoneanotherinthepresentaswellasthepast;therelationality
withChristHimself;andtherelationalityofallthoseunitedtoChristbothonearth
338Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,112339Ibid.,15‐17.Healsocites,ontheCatholicside,OskarSaier,"Communio"inDerLehreDesZweitenVatikanischenKonzils:EineRechtsbegrifflicheUntersuchung(Ismaning:Hueber,1973),andJ.‐M‐RTillard,Eglised'Églises:L'EcclésiologieDeCommunion(Paris:Cerf,1987).340Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,131,footnote#5.Cf.Afanas’ev,LaPrimautéDePierreDansl'EgliseOrthodoxe[Par]N.Afanassieff[EtAl.].;L.Hertling,“CommunioundPrimat‐KircheundPapstuminderchristlichenAntike”inMiscellaneaHistoriaePontificiae(Rome,1943).341Ibid.,60,footnote#1.
162
andinheaven.Ratzinger’semphasisontheChurch’sfundamentalpostureof
receptivityofbothidentityandmissionfromthepriorWordspokenbyGodin
Christ,standsincontrasttosomeotherapproachesthatprioritizethe“horizontal
communio”thatattemptstobeestablishedbytheChurch’sowninitiative.Tracey
Rowlandexplains,“RatherthananalyzingtheChurchfromthevantagepointof
corporatemodelshepreferstheperspectiveoftheCommunioecclesiologywhich
acknowledgestheexistenceofaunifiedsymphonicnetworkofdifferentspiritual
missions.”342Thissymphonicnetworkisultimatelygroundedinthepersonaland
spiritualencounterwithGodwhospeaks.
Thoughthecentralaspectsofthis“communioecclesiology”areapparentin
thescriptures,itisreallythroughthelivedexperienceoftheChurchatprayer,
especiallyinthecelebrationoftheEucharist,intheenteringintosacramental
communion,thatthedepthofthemeaningof“communio”becomesthatmuchmore
clear.RatzingerseesascentraltothissacramentalrealityoftheEucharistthe
mutualcommunionthatisasharingout(Teilgabe)andasharingin(Teilhabe)ofthe
communionofthePaschaofChrist.343Christoffershimselftohispeopleinthe
liturgysothattheymightbedrawnintocommunionwithhim.Andasthepeoplego
awayfromtheliturgy,theyinturngivethemselvesawaytotheworldsothatthe
worldmightbedrawnintothesamecommunionwithChristandHisBody,the
Church.
342Rowland,Ratzinger'sFaith,89.343Ibid.,73.
163
ItisthisaspectofthesharinginandsharingoutofcommunionwiththeLord
intheEucharistthatre‐shapesthenotionofcommunioinboththeJewishandGreek
ancientworldsthatprecededtheeventstestifiedtointheNewTestament.
RatzingerexplainsthattheGreektermkoinoniathatbecomescommunioinLatinis
usedinonewayintheGospelstodescribetheprofessionalassociationofPeter,
JamesandJohnasfisherman.344Theyhadarelationshipofkoinoniarestrictedto
theneedsoftheirlivelihood.FromtheGreekworld,thistermseemstocarryamore
commercialorprofessionalconnotation.IntheJewishworld,theHebrewterm
associatedwiththeGreekkoinonia,chaburah,describesahighlyintimate
relationship.Indeed,chaburah,intheJewishmind,indicatesakindofrelationship
thatistoointimatetosignifytherelationshipbetweenGodandhumanity.Forthis
relationship,berith,covenant,isused.345OnlybecauseoftheexperienceofJesus’
disciplesattheLastSupperandthentheirwitnessofhisself‐sacrificinglovefor
themontheCross,wasthestagesetforthemtoenterintothedeepestsenseof
intimacywithhim.IntheirencounterwiththeRisenJesus,itthenbegantobecome
clearthattheirintimacywithhimasfriendandteacherwasalsointimacywithhim
asLord,withGodhimself.Onlythen,astheybegantocelebratethemealthat
commemoratedthisactofdivinelovepouredoutforthem,didtheyexperiencean
“openingup”oftheLordtothem‐onlybecauseofthisexperience,iskoinonia,or
chaburah,abletobeappliedtothehuman‐divinerelation.Lookingbackonthe
identityofChristthroughthelensofhisResurrection,itbeginstobecomeclearfor
344Ibid.,71.345Ibid.,74.
164
thefollowersofJesusthatinhisperson,GodHimselfwasofferinganewcommunio,
anewintimacywiththemsimplybyhispresenceamongthem,evenbeforethe
eventsonCalvary.Ratzingerexplains,“IntheIncarnationoftheeternalWord,there
comesaboutthatcommunionbetweenGodandthebeingofman,hiscreature,
whichhadhithertoseemedimpossibletoreconcilewiththetranscendenceofthe
oneGod.”346Thiskoinoniathatbeforecouldonlycorrespondtohumanrelations,
doesindeedfortifythesehumanrelationsnow,onthe“horizontal”plane,butitdoes
sowithmuchmoredepthgiventhefactthatthisnewcommuniobetweenhumansis
groundedinthecommuniothatGodhasinitiatedwithhumanity,onthe“vertical”
plane,intheIncarnationandPaschalMysteryofChrist.347AndsofortheChurchto
begenuinelyopentothesourceofitsidentityandself‐understanding,shemust
remaininthatpostureofreceptivityoftheWordofGod.Thispriorityonhearing
theWordcharacterizesthecoreofRatzinger’sownecclesiology‐thatestablishes
the“communio”itself.Itistoanextendedconsiderationofthesedynamicsof
receptivitytotheWordintheChurchthatwenowturn.
IV.ThePriorityofRevelationforChurch
Inthesecondchapter,Idescribedthecourseofthedeliberationsthatended
upproducingDeiVerbum.Ratzingerrecallsthatbecauseofthestalemateinthe
debateonthe“materialcompleteness”ofDivineRevelationthere,somewantedto
giveuponaseparatedocumentonRevelationandsimplyenfoldthoseaspectsinto
thedocumentontheChurch.PopePaulVIrejectedthispossibility,insistingupon
346Ibid.,76.347Ibid.,72,cf.,J.Hamer,L’egliseestunecommunion(Paris,1962),176.
165
theConstitutiononDivineRevelationandpreservingitasawayofemphasizingthe
priorityofRevelationfortherealityoftheChurch.AsRatzingerputsit,itwas
necessarytoembracethisnewunderstandingoftheChurchasprimarilythebody
that“listens”totheWordofGod.Inthislistening,hewrote,theChurchfulfillsher
truenatureandbecomesabletotranscendherselfbyenteringintocommunionwith
theWord,preciselybaseduponherpriorpostureofreceptivitytotheWord.Inthis
manner,theChurchfulfillsheridentityastheSponsaVerbi,Ratzingerasserts,andas
thisbrideoftheWordofGod,shebecomesabletobeartheWordmadefleshinan
ongoingwayintotheworldinwhichshelives.348This“new”ecclesiologicalmodel
groundedinthepriorityofRevelationofGod’sWordarticulatedinDeiVerbum
wouldbefoundationalnotonlyfortheChurch’sselfunderstandinginLumen
Gentium,butalsoforhowshewouldconceiveofhermissionintheworldbeyond
herselfasGaudiumetSpesindicates.Havingreceivedheridentitybylisteningtothe
speechofGod,shefulfillsheridentitybyextendingthatspeechfromGodintothe
wholeworld.Fundamentallyatwork,here,then,intheChurch’sself‐understanding
isthedialogicalandcommunicativenatureoflistening,andspeaking,standing
betweenGodandtheworldasadialoguepartnerforboth.ForRatzinger,whilethe
ChurchistobebothalistenerandaspeakerofGod’sWord,thepriorityiswiththe
modeoflistening.
TheListeningChurch
InthePrefacetoTheEssentialPopeBenedictXVI:HisCentralWritingsand
Speeches,theeditorsnotethatinthehomilypreachedbyCardinalRatzingeronthe
348HerbertVorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol.3,162.
166
eveofhisownelectionassuccessorofPeter,hestrucktwomainnotes:obedience
andfruitfulness.349ObediencetotheTruth,totheWordofGod,begetsfruitfulness.
Indeed,thisisnotonlyanadmonitionforthefaithful,butitcharacterizesthevery
identityofChristhimselfwhoistheOnewhoisobedienttotheFatherandthereby
theOnewhobearsmuchfruit.OnlybecausethisistheidentityofChristdoesit
followthatthisisalsowhotheChurchistobe‐thecommunityoffollowers,
gatheredaroundtheWord,tryingtoliveinobedienceandtherebybecomingthe
communitythatbearsmuchfruitintheworld.TothedegreethattheChurchisable
toremainopenandobedient,theChurchbecomeswhosheismeanttobe.For
Ratzingertosoundthatnoteinsuchahistoricallypivotalmomentforthelifeofthe
Churchindeedshedslightonhisecclesiologicalperspective.
TohighlightthischaracteristicofthelisteningChurch,Ratzingeragainrelies
onthenarrativeoftheActsoftheApostlesthatdescribestheearliestdaysofthe
ChurchasthediscipleswhogathertolistentotheWordofGodtogetherandtodo
soinunionwiththoseapostleswhohadbeenclosesttothepersonofJesus.The
“PeopleofGod,”asLumenGentiumwouldcometodescribetheChurch,isrightly
understood,then,inRatzinger’sviewas“thepeople”notbytheirownchoosingto
cometogether,butratherbasedonitsdialogicalrelationshipwithJesusChrist.This
gatheringofpeople,intheNewTestamentiscalledtheekklesiaAsiscustomaryfor
Ratzinger’stheologicalmethod,hepausestoexplorethehistoricalandcultural
developmentofthemeaningofkeytermsinthisregard.Borrowinganexisting
349Benedict,TheEssentialPopeBenedictXVI:HisCentralWritingsandSpeeches.EditedbyJohnF.Thornton,andSusanB.Varenne,(NewYork:Harper,2007),xiii.
167
termfromtheGreekworld,ekklésiamostoftenreferredtogatheringsofmenforthe
sakeofcivilandpoliticaldeliberations.350Thedevelopmentofitsmeaninginthe
Christiancommunitybecomesclearonlywhenonelooksdeeperintothetradition
andexaminesasimilartermfromtheirownreligioustradition.TheHebrewword,
qahal,withwhichtheearliestJewishChristianswouldhavebeenfamiliar,wasa
gatheringofallthepeople‐womenandchildrenincluded‐andnotjustthemenwho
havesocialandpoliticalauthorityaswasthecaseintheGreeksenseoftheekklésia.
Whenthepeoplegatherinthisway,primarilytolistentoGod’sword,theiridentity
isgiventothem‐they“becomeapeople.”Therootsofthisexperienceofbeing
formedasapeopleareinthefundamentalexperienceofthePeopleofIsraelwho
gatheratMt.SinaitolistentoandreceivetheWordofGodashandeddowntothem
throughMoses.351ItwasMoseswhohad,himself,spokenwithGodasonewould
withafriend(Ex33:11).Bywayofthisintimateencounterwithoneman,thewhole
ofthePeoplearegraduallydrawnintothisuniqueandpersonalrelationshipwith
God.ThisintimatedialoguewithGodisfulfilledfortheChristiancommunityinthe
gatheringaroundthefigureofChrist,alongwithalltheotherswhocometoseekthe
samekindofdialogicalencounterwithhim.Inordertodemonstratethisauthentic
ecclesiologicalpattern,Ratzingeroftenpresentsasakindoficonforthisvisionof
theChurch,theoneinhistorywhosaid“yes”totheWordandinsodoingallowed
theWordtobecomefleshwithinher.
350Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,30.351Ibid.,31.
168
MarianPatternofListeningtotheWordintheChurch
Inarecentpastoraladmonition,PopeBenedictchallengedhisaudienceto
workonestablishinganelementofquietintheirlivessothattheymightbeableto
heartheWordofGodthatisthesourceoflifeforthem:“Itisimportantforus
today…toknowhowtomakesilencewithinus,tolistentoGod'svoice,toseek,asit
were,a‘parlor’inwhichGodspeakswithus.”352Theexampleparexcellenceforthis
modeoflisteninginquietisthefigureoftheBlessedVirginMary.Ratzingersetsout
asamodelforthewholeChurch,theonewhoheardandreceivedtheWordmost
radicallyinherownlifeandintheflesh.IncontemplatingthefigureofMarythe
MotherofGod,thewholeChurchlearnsherowndeepestidentity.Heexplains,
“Marywas,sotospeak,‘athome’withGod'sword,shelivedonGod'sword,shewas
penetratedbyGod'sword.TotheextentthatshespokewithGod'swords,she
thoughtwithGod'swords,herthoughtswereGod'sthoughts,herwords,God's
words.Shewaspenetratedbydivinelightandthisiswhyshewassoresplendent,so
good,soradiantwithloveandgoodness.”353ThisMarianpatternofreceptivityof
theWordthatthenmakespossibletheWordtakingflesh,istobethepatternofthe
wholeChurch.
ForRatzinger,thefocusonMarymakesclearerthelinkbetweenthepatterns
ofChristologyandthoseofecclesiology.ItisforthisreasonthatMariologyiscrucial
forthewholeoftheology.354ThenatureoftheChurchcannotbeunderstoodapart
352PopeBenedictXVI,GeneralAudience,PaulVIAudienceHall,9September,2009.353PopeBenedictXVI,ParishChurch,CastelGandolfo,15August,2005.354Heim,MaximilianHeinrich,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology,412‐413.Cf.,JosephRatzinger,DaughterZion:MeditationsontheChurch'sMarianBelief(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1983),31‐36.
169
fromthesourceoftheChurchandwhatprecedesit,namelythefigureofJesus
Christ,theWordMadeFlesh.Assuch,theessentialMarianroleintheIncarnation
hasimportantimplicationsfortheChurch.Becauseofher“yes”,theunionofGod
andhumanitycantakeplace.HerradicalreceptivityandopennesstotheWord
makesitpossibleforthatWordtotakefleshinhistory.InMary’sFiat,weseeakind
ofconsummationofthedialogicalrelationshipbetweenGodandhumanitythathad
beenunfoldingsincethebeginningofhumanhistory.LaterinRatzinger’scareer,
followingHansUrsvonBalthasar,hebeginstoexploremoreexplicitlythis“nuptial”
characternotonlyofChristologybutofecclesiologyaswell,thatisenrichedbythe
contemplationofMaryastheSponsaVerbi.Thenuptialunion,whichcanbe
understoodastheculminationofthedialogicalnatureoftheChurch,isestablished
againandagain,intheEucharisticcelebrationwhereinthefleshofthebridegroom
isofferedtothebride.Christgoes“beyondhimself”toofferhimselftothebridethe
Church,andthebrideinturngoesbeyondherselfinopeninguptoreceivetheWord
madefleshinthecontextofEucharisticcommunion.Thischaracteristicof“going
beyondoneself”,forRatzinger,iswhatmarksthe“nuptial”natureofthisunion.355
AstheChurchrespondsinkindtothegiftofChrist’swholeself,shebecomesher
trueself‐onlyinthisnuptialunionwiththeLord.Wesee,then,inthismodelof
intimatedialoguebetweenChristandtheChurch,theintrinsiclinkbetween
Christologyandecclesiology.JustasthereisnoauthenticwayofbeingtheChurch
withoutapostureofgatheringtolistentoandencountertheWordandtheperson355FergusKerrstressestheimportanceofthisnuptialvisionnotonlyforRatzingerbutforthewholeChurchthroughhimbywayofhis2004LetterontheCollaborationofMenandWomenintheChurchandintheWorldissuedbytheCDFshortlybeforehewaselectedpope.SeeKerr,TwentiethCenturyCatholicTheologians,181‐202.
170
ofChrist,sotoo,thereisanecessityincomingtogenuinelyknowChristtodoso
alwaysinthecontextofthecommunal,ecclesialsettingandneversimplyonan
individualizedbasis.
EcclesialKnowingofChrist
Inthethirdchapter,Iindicatedhowtheecclesialmannerofcomingtoknow
thepersonofJesusChristiscentraltoRatzinger’sChristology.Thisecclesial
mannerismostimportantlycharacterizedascommunalandhistorical.Godspeaks
toHispeople,heargues,onlythroughthosewhohavealreadylistened.356The
EternalWordismadeknowninthefleshinhistory,preciselyinthecontextofthe
livingtraditionofGod’sChosenPeopleofIsrael.Jesuscomestobeknownonlyin
thecontextoftheecclesialcommunitythathegathersaroundhimself.Andso,in
thecourseoftheunfoldingofthehistoryoftheChristiancommunity,hecanonlybe
knownnotasanobjectofthepaststudiedscientificallyandfromadistance,butasa
livingsubjectknowableinthepresentinthecontextoftheekklésia.The“I”ofthe
ChurchfindsitsunityandthepossibilityofacoherentknowingofChrist,notbythe
consensusitisabletoarriveatbyitsownanalyticalefforts,butultimatelyasagift,
bythepoweroftheHolySpirit,giventotheChurchinPentecost.Onlybythegiftof
theSpiritcanChristbeknown.AsSt.PaulremindstheChurch,onlybythepowerof
theHolySpiritcanoneconfessthatJesusChristisLord(1Cor12:3).
Inthecontemporaryintellectuallandscape,Ratzingerexplainsthisecclesial
hermeneutictakesonanewviability.Heexplainsthattheimportanceofthe
conceptofthe“I”haschangedfromtheCartesiannotionthathasthe“’I’locked
356Ratzinger,TheYesofJesusChrist,27.
171
securelyinitselfdoesnotexist.”Rather,the“’I’isconstitutedinrelationtothe
‘thou.’”357Thereisno“IoftheChurch”withoutthedivine“Thou.”Furthermore,the
Churchis,bydefinition,acollectionofsubjectswhomakeupthe“peopleofGod”
whoaregiventheircorporateidentitybybeingindialoguewiththelivingGod.The
Churchbecomesacommunal“I”,asubject,onlywhenthereisacommonwillingness
tolistentotheWordspokenbytheDivineThou.Inthislistening,theidentityofthe
Churchisrealized.Thisaspectofthegatheringofthepeopleinordertolistenis
crucialtheChristianappropriationofthenotionoftheChurch.Indeed,“thepeople”
areformedandgiventheirtrueidentityintheunfoldingofthedynamicoflistening
thatthenleadstoresponse(Antwort)totheWord(Wort)fullyspokeninhistoryin
thepersonofChrist.358
InfollowingtheWordofGodintheirowncommunallives,thepeopleofGod
becomewhotheytrulyare.ThisissoforthepeopleofIsraelespeciallyasthey
gathertoreceivetheLawatthefootofMt.Sinai.IntheChristiancontext,however,
anewdepthisrevealedinthenatureofthisformationofidentityastheecclesia
gathersforworship.ItisnotonlyalisteningandrespondingtotheWordthat
happensintheliturgy.Inadditiontothislistening,theChristianecclesiareceives
theWordmadeflesh,sacramentally.Thisistheculminationofthegatheringofthe
people.Inthisverballisteningandsacramentalreception,thedialoguebetweenGod
andhispeopleisthengivenaconcreterealityeverytimethecommunitygathersto
participateintheEucharisticsacrificeoftheEternalWordmadefleshinhistory.
357Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,35‐36.358Ratzinger,TheNatureandMissionofTheology,26.
172
Indeed,RatzingerdrawsuponthefamousAugustinianremarkthatthepeopleof
Godaregiventheiridentityintheliturgicalencounterbecausetheyarenotonly
establishedasacommunionamongthemselvesbuttheyaremadeintowhatthey
eat.359AstheChurchdeepensitsidentityastheBodyofChrist,thepeopleofGod
becomewhotheytrulyarebybeingdrawnintocommunionnotonlywithone
anotheronahorizontalplanebutintotheverticalsetofrelationsthatarerootedin
GodHimself,thethreepersonsoftheTrinity.
V.ChurchRealizedinTrinitarianCommunion
TheChurch’sparticipationinTrinitariancommunion,forRatzinger,isnot
simplyamatterofcommunicationbetweenhumananddivineparties,butamatter
oftheveryformationoftheidentityoftheChurchbythisexperienceofcommunion
withFather,SonandHolySpirit.AstheOldTestamentdescriptionoftheqahalof
thePeopleofGodgatheredtolistenandtobeshapedbytheencounterwiththe
livingGodistransposedtotheNewTestamentsetting,thenatureoftheencounter
becomesmoremultifacetedgiventhatinChrist,theGodthatisencounteredisthe
onewhospeaksfromaneternalsetofrelationsthatisthetriuneGod.JesusChrist,
astheLogosofGod,Ratzingerexplains,reveals“Godwhoisnotonlylogosbutdia
logos.”360ThisGod“whoconductsadialogue”isessentiallyrelational,notonlyad
extratowardcreationbutevenadintrainGod’seternalTrinitarianrelations.That
relationalityextendstoHisowncreationandinJesusweseetheculminationand
perfectionofthatdialoguewiththeapexofhiscreation‐thehumanperson.In
359Ratzinger,GodisNearUs,78.Cf.,ConfessionsBk7,10:16360Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,183.
173
orderforhumanitytobedrawnintothisdivinecommunication,however,a
dramaticopeningisrequired.ThisopeningisofferedontheCrossastheWord
spokeninthesilenceofdeath,asLove.JesusfinallyrevealsHimselfasLoveitself,in
theformofthebelovedandfreelyobedientSonoftheeternalFatherofferinghislife
forthesalvationofhumanity.Ratzingerstressesthatwecaninterprettheeventof
theCrossasanactofloveprimarilybasedonthewordsofJesusthenightbeforeat
theLastSupper.Byfreelyandconsciouslyspeakingofhisunderstandingand
willingnesstoofferhimself“foryou”,theintentionalityofwhatwouldcomeabout
ontheCrossthenextdayismadeclear.HeexplainsthatJesus’“Eucharisticwords”
andthefreeintentionbehindthemarewhat“transformsdeathintothespiritualact
ofaffirmation,intotheactofself‐sharinglove.”361Inthissense,Jesusfulfillshis
missionfromtheFatherandfortheworldontheCross.Itisthis“word”ofsilent
lovespokenfromtheCross,manifestedinhispiercedside,thatbringstofulfillment
thedialoguebetweenGodandman‐themeetingofthe“yes”ofGod’slovefor
humanityandhumanity’sresponseoflovebacktoGod.362ForRatzinger,itisonly
inthisfinal,fullestwordoflove“spoken”fromtheCrossthattheChurchbeginsto
seewhoitisthattheyareinrelationto‐thatthisisGodwhohascomefromasetof
triunerelationsinthefleshandwhohasspokentothempreciselyinthismode.The
“peopleofGod,”then,startstobecomeapeoplewithanewidentity,bornfromthis
experienceof“lookinguponhimwhomtheyhavepierced”(Jn19:37,Cf.,Zech
12:10)whohasacceptedthispiercinginlove.
361Ratzinger,GodisNearUs,29.362Foranelaborationonthisdynamic,seeespeciallyGodisNearUs,inthechapterentitled,“God’sYesandHisLoveAreMaintainedEveninDeath”,27‐41.
174
“BeholdHimWhomTheyHavePierced”
ForRatzinger,therecurringbiblicalvisiongiveninthepassageswhereinwe
“beholdhimwhomtheyhavepierced”,servesasakeyChristologicalsourcefor
ecclesiology.Thisis,perhapsthecentralbiblicalmomentforRatzingerthat
providesthelinkbetweenChristologyandecclesiology.St.John’sexpositionofthe
piercingofthesideofChristontheCrossandthesubsequentflowingofbloodand
waterhaslongbeenasignoftheoriginsofthesacramentallifeoftheChurch
beginningwithbaptismandculminatingintheEucharist.HenrideLubac,for
example,intheefforttoretrievethebiblicalandpatristicframeworkfor
understandingtheChurchastheBodyofChristhighlightstheimportanceofthe
imageofthepiercedsideofChristasthesourceofthelifeoftheChurch.363
Furthermore,forRatzinger,fromthepiercedsideofChrist,notonlyistheChurch
bornbutanewcreationisbegun.Fromthesideof“theNewAdam,”anewbrideis
createdintheChurchwhodrawsherlifefromthewellspringofhisheart,theheart
ofGodthatlovesintheflesh‐allthewaytodeath.364
Thebodilyimagerygiveninthenarrativeofthebiblealsoofcoursehas
spiritualramifications,forRatzinger.HenotesthatthoughthepiercingoftheHeart
ofChristontheCrossoccursintherealmofthesoma,thecomingtoknowChristby
wayofthispiercingis,forRatzinger,amatterofthepneuma.Here,theintrinsiclink
betweenChristologyandPneumatologyandhowbotharethesourcesofan
363HenrideLubac,Catholicism:ChristandtheCommonDestinyofMan(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1988),69.364Ratzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne,47‐69.
175
authenticecclesiologyismadeevident.Christ’ssomaexistsinChurchaspneuma.365
AsthoseintheChurchwhoencounterthelogosthathasbeenrevealedaslove,are
inturndrawnbytheSpiritintothatsamedynamicoflovethemselvesandsoreflect
thatloveinhistory.Heexplainsthatthe“I”ofJesusisnotanindependent“I”but
oneverymuchdependentuponhisidentityasSonoftheFather.Thisidentityof
Jesus,heexplains,“istheidentityoflogos(truth)andloveandthusmakesloveinto
thelogos,thetruthofhumanexistence.Theessenceoffaithdemandedbya
Christologysounderstoodisconsequentlyentryintoauniversalopennessof
unconditionallove.FortobelieveinaChristsounderstoodmeanssimplytomake
lovethecontentoffaith.”366Thislivingoutoffaithsounderstoodisthecriterionby
whichthecharacteroftheChurchistobejudged.TheChurch’smissiontothe
worldaccordingtothisfaith‐thecontentofwhichislove‐istheaspectof
Ratzinger’secclesiologytowhichwenowturn.
VI.Mission:SpeakingtheWordtotheWorld
AsIhaveargued,allofRatzinger’stheologyischaracterizedbyadynamicof
unfoldingwithinaframeworkofdialogue.Thisissowithrespecttohisecclesiology
perhapsmostclearly.Ifthefirstmajorcharacteristicofhis“communio
ecclesiology”isthemovementofreceptivityoftheWordofGod,thesecond
movementistheoutwardonetocommunicatetheWordtotheworld.Receptivity
begetsmission.Aswasnotedearlier,RatzingerseesthisWordasultimatelybeing
365Heim,JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology,241.Cf.,“KirchealsTempeldesHeiligenGeistes”inVomWiederauffindenderMitte:Grundnorientierungen:TexteausvierJahrzenten.EditedbyS.O.HornandV.Pfnür.(FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder,1997),148‐157.366Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,208.
176
experiencedasloveitself.TheLogosofGodendsupbeingcommunicated,inthe
Christiannarrative,ascaritas,mostpoignantlyfromthePiercedHeartofChriston
theCross.Thiscaritasisthesubstance,thecontent,oftheWordthatisspokenby
God.ItisalsotheforcebywhichtheChurchbecomesherselfandundertakesher
missionintheworld.Thewordshereceivesisloveandthewordshespeaksinthe
worldislove.RatzingerrecallsaNewTestamentexpressionofthislinkbetween
thelovethatunitesandgivesdynamismtoTrinitariancommunionandalsomoves
theChurchintoheridentityandmission:“ForChristians,thewordsofSt.Paulare
valid:‘TheloveofChristimpelsus’(IICor.5:14).ThecharitythatmovedtheFather
tosendhisSonintotheworld,andmovedtheSontoofferhimselfforusevento
deathontheCross,thatsamecharityhasbeenpouredoutbytheHolySpiritinthe
heartsofbelievers.”367TheWordcommunicatedthroughChristaslovehaspower
to“impel”theChurchintotheworld,accordingtoRatzinger’secclesiological
schema.
AsthosedrawnintounionwithChristfindtheirmostfundamentalidentity
asbelovedchildrenofGodtheFather,368atransformationoccurswithintheheartof
thebelieverthatsparksanoutwardlookingtotheworldinlove.Thefruitofthis
transformationleadstheChristiantothenfurtherenacthisorheridentityinChrist
asnotonly“fromtheFather”,butalso,“fortheworld”.Thistwo‐foldidentitythatis
atonceverticalandhorizontal,isthefoundationforthecharacteristicofthe
367Benedict,AngelusAddress,WorldMissionDay,22October,2006.368Benedict,JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration,132‐133.
177
Christiancommunityasthosewhoarealwaysessentiallymissionary.369Asthe
foundationalidentityofChrististheEternalSonoftheFather,andashisidentityis
livedonlyindialoguewiththeFather,hisidentityastheIncarnateSonisworked
outnotonlyindialoguewiththeFather,butindialoguewiththewholeofhumanity
withwhomhehasbeenunitedinhisIncarnation.370HisidentityasSon,then,
seamlesslyexpressesitselfinhismissiontotheworld.
ThemissionoftheChurch,however,istowitnesstothisloveintheworldto
thosebeyondthe“borders”oftheChurchandtodrawallpeopleintotheloveof
Trinitariancommunion.ItisinthiswaythattheChurchismissionaryincharacter.
JustasIsraelwaslighttothenations,Christ,theLumenGentiumhimself,throughhis
bodytheChurch,reflectsthatlight,sothatallmightbedrawnintoparticipationin
Trinitariancommunion.371TheChurchfailsinlivinguptohertrueidentity,
Ratzingerargues,whenshespendstoomuchtimefocusedonherself.TheChurchis
mostfullywhosheiswhencommunicatingtheloveofChristtotheWorldandthe
worldinallitswoundednessandfragilitybacktotheFatherthroughChrist.Beinga
placewherethiscommunication,thisdialoguecanhappen,istherealaimofthe
Churchandwhenshefulfillsit,sheoffersanirreplaceableservicetotheworld.
RatzingernotesthatwhentheChurchfulfillsheridentity,tobeinunionwithChrist
andreflectingthatuniontotheworld,theChurchofferstheultimateliberationto
theworldthatisnotmaterialbutratheran“eternalhorizon.”372
369LumenGentium#8.370Ratzinger,TheMeaningofChristianBrotherhood(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1993),75‐84.371Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,126.372Ibid.,145.
178
TheChurch’sOfferingtotheWorld
OnlywhentheChristianidentityisestablishedbyenteringintothe
subjectivityofpersonofChristinthecontextoftheecclesialcommunity,isthe
Christianreadytolookoutwardtotheneedsoftheworld.InJosephRatzinger’s
firstsubstantialessaypublishedafterhisdoctoralwork,heexploredthethemeof
ChristiansolidaritywiththeworldinTheChristianMeaningofBrotherhood.373He
followshereasimilartheologicalmethodasinotheraspectsofhistheologywhen
hetracesthedevelopmentofmeaningoftermsfromdifferentlanguagesand
culturesoftheancientworldandthenexamineshowtheycometoanewfullnessof
meaninganddepthinthelightoftheChristevent.Inthiscase,heexaminesthe
notionofbrotherhoodasitdevelopsintheJewishtraditionaswellasinthecontext
ofGreekcultureandphilosophy.374HenotesthatintheEnlightenment,thenotion
offraternitébecomesabasisfornewrationalistsocietyofequalitéandlibertéas
well.ButintheChristianvision,becauseofthesolidaritywithhumanitythatcomes
aboutbythedivineinitiativeoftheIncarnationoftheEternalWord,anew
brotherhoodamongthehumancommunitybecomespossible,notonthebasisof
humanefforts,butbecausewearebaptized(plunged)intoitbytheFather’schoice
toadopthumanityintotherelationshipofbeloveddaughtersandsonsofhisbyway
ofunionwithhiseternalSon.Fromthisfilialrelationshipestablishedinbaptism,
thereemergesaspecialsolidaritynotonlywithChrist,butwithallofhumanityfor
theonebaptized.ThisisasolidaritybasedonChristologicalidentity.Thesocial
373Ratzinger,TheMeaningofChristianBrotherhood,93.374Ibid.,5‐19.
179
consequencesofthisspiritualandtheologicalrealityofChristianincorporationinto
thefamilyofGodareprofound,inRatzinger’sview.375
Ratzinger’stheologyofChristologicalsolidarityhassincebecomeapartof
thedepositofthewholeChurch’sfaithenshrinedinthesocialteachingofBenedict’s
thirdencyclicalandfirstexplicitly“socialencyclical”,CaritasinVeritate.376Herehe
acknowledgesthatwhilethepossibilityofrecognizingtheequalityofallpeoplecan
bearrivedatbyreasonalone,itisonlybywayoftheRevelationofGod,bybeing
unitedinChrist,thatthepossibilityoffraternityamongpeoplecanbeestablished.377
Thisdeeperbondofloveisnotsomethingthatcanbegeneratedbyhumaneffort
alone,butratherisagifttobereceived.378ThisisagiftthatisgivenbyGodthe
FatherwhosenthiseternalSonintoourmidsttodrawusintointimateunionwith
himandthereforemakepossibletheraisingofouridentityanddignityfrom
creaturesofGodtoadopted,beloveddaughtersandsonsofGod.Thisdeeperbond
ofunityisknownintheChristiantraditionascaritas.379
Fromasecularperspective,thenotionofcharityinmoderntimeshastaken
onanegativeconnotationbecauseseensolelyfromwithinthehorizontal,social
plane,itindicatesaninequalityandacondescensionanddemeaningofthosewho
375Ibid.,21‐37.376Benedict,CharityinTruth:CaritasinVeritate:EncyclicalLetter(Washington,DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2009),93.377Ibid.,#19.Cf.,PopePaulVI,EncyclicalLetterontheDevelopmentofPeoples:PopulorumProgressio,1967,#21.378Ibid.,#34.379ForafurtherelaborationonthisChristologicaldimensionoffraternitéasitisdevelopedinCaritasinVeritate,seeChristopherCollins,SJ,“ChristologyandPropheticWitnessinCaritasinVeritate”inPromotioJustitiae,No.104,Rome,2010.
180
arebelowbythosewhoareabove.380Theactofcharityisfurthermoreundertaken
onthetermsofthosewho“have”towardthosewho“havenot”andnoreal
reciprocityorequalityofdignityisrecognizedwithinthateconomyofexchange.
ButforBenedict,theChristiandynamicisverydifferentinthatallcharitybegins
withGodwhoislove,whochoosessolidaritywithallhumanitylivinginpovertyof
love.OncethefaithfulhavereceivedthatloveofGodintheirownlives,they
necessarilyaremovedoutintotheworldtoliveaccordingtothesamepattern.Itis
forthisreasonthatBenedictsays,“FortheChurch,charityisnotakindofwelfare
activity...butisapartofhernature,anindispensableexpressionofhervery
being.”381Thisexpressionisultimatelyconcretizedindirectcontactandworkwith
andforthemateriallypoor,butitflowsfromthedeeperspiritualrealityofthe
universalspiritualpovertyfromwhichGodcomestoliberatehumanity.For
Ratzinger,thebeginningofthatliberationoccursintheexperienceofmeetingthe
RisenChristintheliturgy.
VII.WordEncounteredinLiturgy:DialogueMadeFlesh
Alwaysseekingtopersonalizeandprovideanarrativewaytoexplainthese
mysteriesintheChristianlife,PopeBenedictrecentlysituatedthemeaningofthe
liturgicalencounterwithinthescripturalnarrativeaswellasthenarrativeofhis
ownlife.Hedidsowiththehopethathisaudiencecouldmakethesameconnection
intheirownlives.Inhisanticipatoryaddresstoyoungpeopleplanningon
attendingtheWorldYouthDayinMadridinAugust2011,afterexplaininghisown380ChristopherRowland,TheCambridgeCompaniontoLiberationTheology(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999),260.381Benedict,DeusCaritasEst#35.
181
pathfromhisyouthseekingtolivealifefulloffreedomandmeaning,andhowthis
pathledtothepriesthoodandultimatelytohisserviceasabishopandthevicarof
Christ,heexplainswhythisprojectofportrayinginanevernewwaythesubstance
oftheencounterwithJesusissoessential.RecallingThomas’sdisappointmentat
initiallynotbeingabletoseetherisenLordinhisfirstappearancetotheother
disciples,herelatesThomas’experiencetothoseofhisaudience:
WetoowanttobeabletoseeJesus,tospeakwithhimandtofeelhispresenceevenmorepowerfully…Jesushimself,whenheappearedagaintohisdisciplesaweeklater,saidtoThomas:“Putyourfingerhereandseemyhands.Reachoutyourhandandputitinmyside.Donotdoubtbutbelieve”(Jn20:27).WetoocanhavetangiblecontactwithJesusandputourhand,sotospeak,uponthesignsofhisPassion,thesignsofhislove.Itisinthesacramentsthathedrawsparticularlyneartousandgiveshimselftous.Dearyoungpeople,learnto“see”andto“meet”JesusintheEucharist,whereheispresentandclosetous,andevenbecomesfoodforourjourney.InthesacramentofPenancetheLordrevealshismercyandalwaysgrantsushisforgiveness.RecognizeandserveJesusinthepoor,thesick,andinourbrothersandsisterswhoareindifficultyandinneedofhelp.382
Thesefewwordssuccinctlyprovidetheoutlinesofthemostessentialelementsof
Ratzinger’smethodofintertwiningChristology,ecclesiologyandtheessenceof
liturgy.ThestartingpointofthisChristology,ofcourse,isthescripturalwitness
relatedtothepersonofJesusofNazareth.Fromthere,helinksthecontemporary
“hearersoftheWord,”tothesamenarrativeinitiatedinScripture,allowingthosein
thepresenttoidentifywiththecharacterseekingJesusinthepast,inthiscase,
Thomas.WiththeaidofthemodelofThomas,Benedictacknowledgestheobstacles
togenuineencounterwithChristincontemporaryculturethatisshapedby
382BenedictXVI,MessageofhisHolinessfortheTwenty‐SixthWorldYouthDay(2011),6August,2010.
182
alternativeconcernsandperspectives.Hethenallowshisownsearchingtobecome
apartofthisoneunfoldingnarrative,seekingsolidaritywithhisaudiencearound
thepersonofJesus,andthenpointsthewaytotheecclesialandespeciallyliturgical
andsacramentallocusforthefulfillmentofthis“search.”Thisseekingisnotfulfilled
untilitgeneratesaresponseintheseekertothenmoveoutintotheworldina
missionarymodetohelpothersbedrawnintotheoneunfoldingnarrativethat
makespossibleencounterwiththeEternalWordspokeninhistory,intheflesh,in
love.
ItisinthecontextoftheliturgythatthewholeofJosephRatzinger’stheology
comestolife.Itiswherethewholeoftheologyisconsummatedandfromwhichit
drawsitsvitality.TheliturgicallawoftheChurchacknowledges,too,thatthe
liturgyasawholeisfundamentallymarkedbyadialogicalcharacter:“Ina
celebrationincommonorinindividualrecitation[oftheDivineOffice]theessential
structureofthisliturgyremainsthesame,thatis,itisaconversationbetweenGod
andman.”383WhenhenotesthatallChristianrevelationisessentiallydialogue,384
weseehowitisinthesettingofliturgicalworship,thatthisdialoguetakesplace
mostconcretely.TheWordunfoldstobecomeFleshastheliturgyoftheWordgives
waytotheliturgyoftheEucharist.Theliturgyitselffollowstheframeworkof
Revelationaslogosismadesarxandinthereceptionofthelogos‐made‐sarx,the
recipientofthisgiftisdrawnupintotrueworshipinspiritandtruth(Jn4:23)‐back
intotherealmoflogos.Accordingtothisdynamic,thereisanexitusredituspattern
383CatholicChurch,GeneralInstructionontheLiturgyoftheHours.(Washington,D.C.:OfficeofPublishingServices,U.S.CatholicConference,1983),40.384Vorgrimler,CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol.3,171.
183
atworkineveryparticularcelebrationoftheliturgy.Ashewritesinhisbookonthe
liturgythetitleofwhichheborrowsfromagreatinfluenceonhisownthoughton
thesematters,RomanoGuardini,385Ratzingernotesthattherevelation,the
unveiling,thattakesplaceintheliturgyisnoneotherthanthatwhichoccurred
definitivelyonMt.Calvaryandyetisrecapitulateddailyonaltarsaroundtheworld
asChristcomestohispeoplejustashedidintheUpperRoomonHolyThursday
andonCalvaryonGoodFriday.386ThedefinitiveunveilingofGod’slovefor
humanitymarkstheturningpointofman’sresponseofloveandthereforehis
returntoGod.
RatzingernotesthatineveryEucharisticcelebration,theentiremysteryofthe
lifeofChristisreflected.Thereisa“coming”intheoffertorythatisreflectiveof
Advent.Attheinstitutionnarrative,thesacrificeofChristonthecrossisrecalled
andmadepresentagain.FinallyitisanEastermomentofencounteringandbeing
unitedtotheRisenLordinholycommunion.AllthemysteriesofthelifeofChrist
arepresentandaccessibletothefaithfulintheunfoldingofeveryeucharistic
liturgy.387Butevenpriortothis,whatmakesitpossiblefortheChristiantoenter
intothisunionwiththenarrativeofthelifeofChristisbeingunitedtohimin
baptism.Beforelookingattheeucharisticliturgyasthesourceandsummitof
Christianlife,asSacrosanctumConciliumputit,itisessentialtolookattheroleof
baptismanditstheologicalsignificanceinordertoseetheshapeofthefaithinto
whichoneisintroducedinthisinitiatoryChristianexperience.
385RomanoGuardini,TheSpiritoftheLiturgy(London:Sheed&Ward,1930),148.386Ratzinger,TheSpiritoftheLiturgy,44‐50.387Ratzinger,GodisNearUs,69.
184
InPrinciplesofCatholicTheology,Ratzingeroutlinesthefoundational
characteristicofbaptismandhowitprovidesapatternforthewholeofChristian
faith.388Acknowledgingthatintheattempttoemphasizetheessentialdimensions
oftheriteofbaptism‐theneedforflowingwaterandtheshortformulaof
Trinitarianfaith‐whathassometimesoccurredunintentionallyinthetheological
expressionsofthismystery,isakindofabstractionofChristianfaith.Sincebaptism
istheentryintofaith,hesays,thepersonalandecclesialnatureofbaptismand
thereforeoftheChristianfaithasawholemustbehighlightedinanewway.Above
all,theforgivenessofsinsmakesbaptism,andthereforethefaithasawhole,a
deeplypersonalencounterwiththeLord.RatzingernotesthatLutherwasontothis
problemoftheseparationoffaithandbaptismandthisiswhyhestressedsomuch
thepersonalnatureoftheforgivenessofsinsinbaptism.WhatLutherlacked,
however,wasthefurtherinsightregardingnotonlythepersonalbutalsothe
ecclesialnatureofChristianfaithasitisbegunintheexperienceofbaptism.389The
intrinsiclinkbetweenbaptismandeucharisthelpstohighlighttheecclesialnature
ofthisunfoldingencounterofthefaithfulwithChrist.
PerhapsnootheraspectofRatzinger’stheologyoftheliturgy(broadly
conceived,includingbothbaptismandeucharist)isasimportantastheinsistence
uponthepriorityoftheactiodivina.Ifinthewholeofhistheology,thecategoryof
“dialogue”bestdescribeshowRatzingerseestheChristianmystery,itisalwaysa
dialogueinitiatedbyGod.ThepeopleofGodrespondtothisinitiative.Indeed,not
388Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology,27‐55.389Ibid.,106‐108.
185
untilthepeopleofGodrespond,provideanAntworttotheWortGottes,dothey
manifesttheirtrueidentity.390ForRatzinger,thedivineliberationofhumanitythat
isbeguninbaptismismostfullyrealizedinthedynamicsoftheEucharisticliturgy,
whereinChrist,Caritasitself,comestothepooroftheassembly,speakstotheir
heartsandgivesthemhislove,hisownheart,sacramentally.Whatbeginswitha
Divinespeakingtohumanitybecomesadivinegivingoflove,ofself,intheflesh.By
wayofDivineAction,then,doestheChurchherselfbecomewhoshereallyis.
ThereceivingoftheWordmadefleshultimatelybecomesconcretizedinthe
mostdramaticwayinthecontextoftheliturgy.391Inthisencounter,theChurchis
made.ThisisthefoundationalelementofRatzinger’s“communioecclesiology”
whichheexplainsis“initsinmostnatureaEucharisticecclesiology.”392He
describeshowintheencounteroftheliturgy,thecorporatepersonalityofthe
Churchisfulfilledonlyasshegoesbeyondherselfinthesacramentalunionwith
Christ.Inthissense,thecelebrationoftheEucharistexpressesanuptialunionin
whichthe“I”oftheChurchtrulybecomesherselfonlywhenlettingdownthe
barriersofherformer“I”and“losing”herselfinthe“Thou”ofChristwhofulfillshis
ownidentitybyvirtueofhisperfectself‐donation.Insofarasthislosingofself
occurs,theChurchultimatelygainshertrueselfinthissacramentalunionbecauseit
isintheliturgy,thatwhathasseparatedpeoplefromtheirGodisnowovercomeand
390Ratzinger,TheNatureandMissionofTheology,26.SeealsoRomanoGuardini,TheSpiritoftheLiturgy,148.Ratzinger,aswasmentionedearlier,wasdeeplyshapedbythecentralityoftheliturgyintheformationofChristianidentity,thanks,inpart,totheworkofGuardini.391Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,27.392Ratzinger,PilgrimFellowshipofFaith,131.
186
theycanbecomereconciled.393ItisforthisreasonthatthesacrificeofChrist,not
justtheaspectofthecommunalmealoftheEucharist,takespriorityforRatzinger.
Thecommunalnatureoftheliturgyisestablishedonlybecauseoftheefficacyofthe
sacrificethatisre‐presentedonthealtar.InthecelebrationoftheEucharist,
Ratzingerexplains,Christ“comestousandbegs,asitwere,forreconciliation.”394
ThisisthewordspokenbyhimformtheCross‐thathethirsts,foraresponsefrom
thosetowhomheisspeakingwiththewordofhisself‐sacrifice.Thisspeaking
continuesinthepresenteverytimetheEucharistiscelebrated.ThesameChrist
continuestobegforaresponse,andasthepeoplerespondintheaffirmative,in
acceptanceofthisword,thesacramentoftheEucharistbecomesthatofthosewho
haveletthemselvesbereconciledbyGod.395TheyhaveletGodtaketheinitiative.
Christ’spassionandthecontinualcelebrationofthatpassionintheEucharistic
liturgy,however,doesnotleavetheassemblypassive.Rather,inofferingan
AntworttohisWortofsufferinglove,theassemblyisreconciled,enlivenedand
fulfilledinitsidentityandgivenwhatisnecessarytofulfillthemissionthatcomes
withthisidentity.396
Conclusion:TheActualizationoftheDialogue
ForRatzinger,theChurch’sdiscoveryofitstrueidentityandmissioninthe
courseoftheliturgyisadiscoveryofthetranscendentnatureofthehumanperson.
Thisdiscoveryofidentityhappensintheliturgybecauseitisamomentofthe
earthlyentryinHeaven.Herethetemporalisabletoenterintotheeternalbecause393Ratzinger,CalledtoCommunion,37.394Ratzinger,GodisNearUs,40395Ibid.,60396Ibid.,50
187
therehasfirstbeenanentryintohistoryfromtheplaceofeternity.Inlightofthis
understandingoftheliturgy,itbecomesclearthatRatzinger’stheologyoftheliturgy
isclearlylinkedtotheconcernsofeschatology.397Whathappensonceinthesemel
ofhistoryonCalvary,isrecapitulatedinawaythatitparticipatesinthesemperof
eternity.398ThisispossiblebecausetheoneeternalLogos,throughwhomallthings
aremade,theonethenencounteredinChrist,isthesameLogosmetintheLiturgy.
ThisWordoflove,then,whenreceivedbytheassembly,givesconfidencetothe
recipientsinthepowerofloveoverevendeathitself.Ratzingerexplains,“The
eventoftheSupperconsistsinJesussharinghisbodyandblood,i.e.,hisearthly
existence;hegivesandcommunicateshimself.Inotherwords,theeventofthe
Supperisananticipationofdeath,thetransformationofdeathintoanactoflove.”399
Itisforthisreasonthatthecrossstandsatthecenterofwhatbecomesfinally,a
worship“inspiritandtruth”intheliturgy.Ratzingerdescribesthesacrificeof
ChristonthecrossastrueworshipbecauseitflowsfromatrueknowingofwhoGod
isandwhohumanityis.Onthecross,Jesusfulfillstheauthenticallyhumanposture
ofworshiptowardGodtheFather.ForChristianswhoparticipateinthesacrificeof
praise,then,theytoocantakepartintrueworshipthatisaimedateternallife.400
Thistrueworshipallowsalsotheassemblytoenterintotheeschatologicalhope
thatChristmakespossiblebyhisownsalvificself‐offeringonthecross.Ratzinger
notesthatintheformofspeech,Christhimselfbeginstoopenupthiseschatological
hopeforhumanity.Inthe“Eucharisticwords”ofJesusattheLastSupper,he397Ratzinger,SpiritoftheLiturgy,60.398Ibid.,55‐57.399Ratzinger,BeholdthePiercedOn,25.400Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,287.
188
explainshisapproachtodeath.Indeed,historically,thesewordsnotonlydisposed
himtoapproachhisowndeathconfidentinhope,butsacramentally,theyalsoeffect
abridgingofthechasmbetweenlifeanddeathforthoseparticipatinginthe
liturgy.401TheseEucharisticwordsofJesusthatboth“make”theChurchandare
alsothewordsthatconfrontdeathinhope,playakeyroleintheshapingofthe
Christianeschatologicalvisionaswellastheecclesiologicalone.Andso,fromthe
contextoftheexperienceoftheliturgy,wemoveourconversationfromRatzinger’s
understandingoftheChurchtohisvisionofeschatology‐howallofhumanhistory
isfulfilledinlightoftheWordspokenacrosschasmoftheapparentsilenceofdeath.
401Ratzinger,GodisNearUs,29.
189
Chapter5
WordSpokenfromBeginningtoEnd:CreationandEschatology
“WiththeIncarnationoftheSonofGod,eternityenteredtimeandhumanhistorywasopenedtoabsolutefulfillmentinGod.Timewas,sotospeak,‘touched’byChrist,theSonofGodandofMary,andreceivedfromhimnewandsurprisingsignificance:it
becameatimeofsalvationandgrace.”402
Thusfar,IhavetriedtomakethecasethatinthetheologyofJoseph
Ratzinger,thereisalwaysoperativeadialogicalstructure,thatis,nomatterwhat
theaspectoftheoneChristianmysteryinquestion,thereisalwaysadynamicat
workofadialoguebetweenparties,oftheeternalLogosspeakingandbeingheard.
OnlyfromwithinthetensionofthisdialogueisthetruthoftheChristianmystery
uncovered.Ratherthanofferingpropositionaldefinitionsofthisorthataspectof
thefaith,theoneChristianmysteryisbestexplainedinanarrativemodeatthe
heartofwhichistheunfoldingofthedialoguebothwithinthetriuneGodand
betweenGodandhumanity.Thisdialogicalnarrativehasatitscenteracharacter
namedJesusChrist.Allofhumanhistory,indeedallofcreation,centersonandfinds
itssourceandfulfillmentinthisfigurewhoistheWordmadeflesh.
Inthelastchapter,weexploredhowitisinJosephRatzinger’stheology,that
thenatureoftheChurchisbothestablishedandfulfilledinthecommunalencounter
withthepersonofJesusChrist.Thisismostconcretelyandpoignantly
accomplishedwhenthewholeoftheekklésiacomestogetherfortheliturgytohear
theWordofGodspokeninscriptureandgivenintheEucharist.TheChurchismade
402Benedict,VespersHomilyforSolemnityofMaryMotherofGod,Rome,31December2009.
190
whosheismeanttobeinthisliturgicalencounter.Inthisliturgicalencounter,time
isopenedupintoeternityaseveryliturgycelebratedonearthsharesinthe
heavenlyliturgy.Inthisplaceofencounter,eternitytoucheshistoryandhistoryis
openedupintoeternity.
Thenatureofthismeetingplaceofhistoryandeternityistheobjectoffocus
forthislastchapter.Wetakeuphere,thedialogicalnatureofRatzinger’sthoughtas
itpertainstohisunderstandingofcreationandeschatology.Howisitthatthe
creativeWordGodspeaksbywhich“theheavensweremade”(Ps33:6)isthesame
Wordthatisspokeninthemidstoftheapparentbreakdownoftheharmonyof
creationwithinhumanhistory?HowisitthatthatsameWordisbeingspokeneven
acrosstheapparentlyultimatebarrierofsilencethatisdeath‐theendofcreation
andhistory,asitwere?AndhowisthatWordspokenindeaththebasisof
Resurrectionandeternallife?Thesequestionsaretakenupagainandagaininthe
theologyandinthepreachingofRatzinger,butinthischapterIwillfocusespecially
ontwoworksofhisthatmostexplicitlyaddresstheseissues,namelyEschatology:
DeathandEternalLife,publishedinGermanoriginallyin1977andhissecond
encyclical,SpeSalvi,onthenatureofChristianhope,promulgatedthreedecades
later,in2007.Bothclearlyrevealthedialogicalnatureofhistheologyofcreation
andespeciallyhiseschatology.Drawingalsouponotherworksofhistakenfrom
acrossthespanofhistheologicalandpastoralcareer,fromhisseconddoctoral
thesis,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,tohisrecentlypublishedsecond
volumeofJesusofNazareth,Ihopetoestablishthebasiccontoursofhisthoughton
191
creationandeschatologythatareessentiallyexpressiveofhisdialogicaland
narrativemodeofdoingtheology.
Inthischapter,Iwillfirstattempttosurfacesomeofthemostsignificant
interlocutorsofRatzingerwhenitcomestohistheologyofcreationandeschatology.
Thechallengesthatmuchofmoderntheologyhaveposedtoacoherent
understandingofhistoryaswellasanauthenticbiblicalexegesisthatisbothcritical
andopentothehorizonoffaith‐thesearethemostimportantfactorsinRatzinger’s
developmentofafreshapproachtothesequestionsinhisowncareer.After
outliningthe“stateofthequestion”asitwere,Iwillthenundertakeanarticulation
ofhistheologyofcreationandsubsequentlyofhumanhistoryasitisfoundedupon
theLogosofGodbeingspokenandthereforeintelligibletohishumancreatures.
Baseduponthedialogicalstructureofcreationandhistory,accordingtoRatzinger’s
theology,thehumanpersonisultimatelyabletoparticipateintheintelligibilityof
creationandenjoytheprivilegedplaceinthecreatedorderasthosewithwhomGod
desirespersonalcommunicationandrelationship.Asheputitinhiswelcome
addresstothehundredsofthousandsgatheredatWorldYouthDayinMadridin
2011,“Godislookingforaresponsibleinterlocutor,someonewhocandialoguewith
himandlovehim.”403Thedialoguethat“begins”withcreation,then,isextended
throughoutthewholeofsalvationhistory.Havingestablishedthedialogical
foundationsofRatzinger’stheologyofcreationandeschatology,Iwillthenconsider
thenatureofthechallengetothisdialoguethatdeathposeswhichseemstoimpose403Benedict,WelcomeCeremonywithYoungPeople,PlazadeCibeles,Madrid,18August2011.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/august/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20110818_accoglienza‐giovani2‐madrid_en.html
192
asilenceonthiscommunicationhuman‐divinecommunication.Ratzingerexplains
thattheWordcontinuestobespokenfromGodeveninthecontextofhumandeath.
ThisWordofGod,inthepersonofChrist,becomesthebasisofhumanhopethatcan
persevereeveninthefaceofdeath.Jesus’ownResurrection,then,becomesthe
pivotuponwhichatheologyofcreation,seeminglyunderminedbytherealityof
death,continuestounfoldintothesphereofeschatology.Finally,Iwillexaminethe
dialogicalqualityofRatzinger’sunderstandingofeternallifeasitpertainstothe
natureofheaven,hellandpurgatory.Myhope,then,throughoutthechapter,isto
traceanoverallunfoldingofanarrativeatworkinRatzinger’screationand
eschatology.Andsowebeginwithabrieflookatthecontextofthetheological
discoursefromwhichhistheologyemerges.
I.ContextofRatzinger’sContributions
Culturallyspeaking,inthewakeoftheSecondWorldWarandlaterinthe
midstoftheColdWarthatpresentedthepossibilityofglobalnuclearannihilation,a
senseofhistoricalstabilityhadbeendeeplyundermined.Atthesametime,greater
globalrecognitionoftheplightofthepoorinitiatedacritiqueofthehistorical
processesthathadproducedsuchinjusticeandinhumanity.Foravarietyof
reasons,then,inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,aculturalcontexthad
emergedcharacterizedbyRatzingerasan“historicalprocessincrisis.”404
Theologicallyspeaking,thequestionofhistoryhadbecomepressing,inpart,
becauseofrecentexegeticalworkthatexploredthenatureofJesus’eschatological
404Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,(Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityPress,1988)1.
193
preaching,thesedoctrinalmattershadcomeonceagaintotheforeofinterest
amongtheologians.Itistotheseculturalandexegeticalcontexts,fromwhich
Ratzingerconstructshisnewdogmaticsbasedoneschatology,thatwenowturn.
TheChallengeofPoliticalTheology
ThecontemporaryneedtoclarifytheCatholicvisionofeschatologywas
recognizedbyRatzingeragainstthebackdropoftheemergenceofthe“political
theology”pioneeredbythelikesofJohannMetzandJürgenMoltmann.Later,this
politicaltheologywoulddevelopinthecontextofLatinAmericanliberation
theologypioneeredbyGustavoGutierrezandothers.Thefoundationsofthis
“politicaltheology”couldbetracedtoacertainreductionoftheologytoethicsthat
emergedinthenineteenthcentury.Inthisregard,thegreatfigureofProtestant
liberalismwholoomssolarge,AdolfvonHarnack,setasidetheelementsofthe
Christianreligionrelatingtothesupernaturalrealmthatarepurportedlyhardto
believe.HeinsteadsoughttoconstituteChristianityasitpertainstotherealmof
ethicswhereinallmightseeJesusastheirbrotherwholivedaheroiclifeand
consequentlybemotivatedtoliveasonehumanfamilywhoiscomprisedofchildren
ofoneFatherinheaven.405ThepoliticaltheologyofthelikesofJohannesBaptist
Metz,isnodoubtinfluencedbythistraditionofidentifyingtheologicalrealitywith
ethics.Atthecoreofthispoliticaltheologyistherecognitionoftheneedfor
Catholictheologytospeaktotheconcreteneedsofthepoorandoppressedinthe
present,inpartbyexaminingandcritiquingthehistorythathadsystematically
405AdolfvonHarnack,WhatisChristianity?LecturesDeliveredintheUniversityofBerlinduringtheWinterTerm18991900,(NewYork:G.P.Putnam'sSons,1903).
194
producedtheconditionsforthisinjustice.406Inthissense,someonelikeMetztakes
historyveryseriouslyinthesensethathedesiresapracticaleffectinthedailylives
ofhumanitytobeshapedbythemessageofChrist.407Ratzinger’scritiqueofthis
movementintheology,however,pointsoutthatinthismanneroftaking“history”
seriouslybecauseofpoliticalandsocialconcerns,theriskisrunthathistoryitselfis
simultaneouslydevaluedinthatitcanberelegatedtothepastoncethecritique
againstitisleveled.FergusKerrrecallsRatzinger’scritiqueofMetz’political
theologybycitinga1982essayfromPrinciplesofCatholicTheology.Kerrrecounts
theheartofRatzinger’scritiqueofcertainaspectsofthepoliticaltheologyofMetz
“inwhichtheenthusiasticoptionforhistoryrepresents,atthesametime,anequally
decisiverejectionofthepast,asuspensionofallreferencetotraditioninfavourofa
programmeofwhatistobedone.”408Thispotentialforantagonismtowardhistory
itselfbecauseofitscarryingofstructuresofinjustice,ismostpotentlyarticulatedin
theMarxistphilosophyofhistoryandconcernforrevolutionforthesakeofan
establishmentofsocialjustice.AidanNicholsarguesthatRatzingerseesthis
“tributary”ofMarxismintheologicalcirclesofthetwentiethcenturyasperhapsthe
mostsignificantchallengetoapropertheologicalperspectiveonhumanhistoryand
thereforeanauthenticvisionofeschatology.HeretoointheMarxistvision,history
istakenseriouslyinthefirststagesofcritique,buthistoryitselfissoonrelegatedto
themere“past”andwhatbecomesimportantisreallyonlythefuturethatholdsthe406Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,58.407SeeforexampleJohannesBaptistMetzandJamesMatthewAshley,FaithinHistoryandSociety:TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology(NewYork:CrossroadPub.Co,2007).408FergusKerr,TwentiethCenturyCatholicTheologians:FromNeoscholasticismtoNuptialMysticism(Malden,MA:BlackwellPub,2007),188.Cf.Ratzinger,PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1987),157.
195
promiseofcomingrevolutionsinstigatedbyhumaneffort.409Theuseofhistory,in
themodeofmuchofpoliticaltheology,then,isessential,onlytodiagnosethe
problemofinjusticeandsufferingandtoinsistontheimprovementofconditionsin
thefuture.However,theroleofGod’songoingrelationshipthroughoutthewholeof
historyseemstorecedeinimportanceincomparisontohumanagencyin
addressingtheproblemsofhumansuffering.
Ratzingeracknowledgedthefundamentalinsightthatasocialandpolitical
critiqueofhistorywasbeingofferedbyhistwentiethcenturypeers.Hetooallowed
himselftobechallengedasatheologianbytherealityofthosewhosufferedinthe
presentmomentofhistory.HesawthatthematterofChristianhopewasperhaps
thegreatestofthechallengesfacingthecontemporaryChurchandherabilityto
carryouthermissiontoevangelize,effectively.Heexplains,“Themosttelling
objectionagainsttheChristianfaithliesinitshistoricalineffectiveness.Ithasnot
changedtheworld;atleastthatishowitseems.Alltheoreticaldifficultiesweigh
almostnothinginthefaceofthisoppressiveexperience.Forwithitthecentral
wordofChristianity,themessageofsalvation,remainsempty.Itremainsjusta
word.Ifthroughthefaithnothinghappens,theneverythingthatitmightotherwise
sayisemptytheory,lyingbeyondverificationandfalsificationand‐assuch‐ofno
consequence.”410InechoingthecontemporarycritiqueofChristianimpotencewith
409AidanNichols,TheThoughtofPopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofJosephRatzinger(NewYork:Burns&Oates,2007),111.410JamesCorkery,JosephRatzinger'sTheologicalIdeas:WiseCautionsandLegitimateHopes(NewYork:PaulistPress,2009),52.Cf.,JosephRatzinger,‘VorfragenzueinerTheologiederErlösung’in:LeoScheffczyk(ed.),ErlösungundEmanzipation.QuaestionesDisputate61(Freiburg‐im‐Breisgau:Herder,1973),141.
196
respecttohistory,hedescribesthesituationinlogo‐centricterms.Itispossible,he
explains,that“thecentralwordofChristianity…remainsjustaword.”Thatistosay
itmaybethatChristianityitselfiscomprisedofnothingbutemptytheoryand
ideals.Heusesthephrase“justaword”then,toindicate“aword”thatremains
abstract,trappedintherealmofthespeculative.Butthenatureofhisresponseisto
showhowthiscentralwordofChristianity,takesflesh‐becomesconcreteinhistory‐
andshapesthenarrativeofthewholeofsalvationhistory.Ratzinger’s“theologyof
theWord”thatisofferedinRevelation,fulfilledinChristologyandexpressedin
ecclesiologyandespeciallyliturgy,becomesindispensible,now,inaddressingthe
contemporaryculturalandtheologicalconcernsthatdemandaneweschatology.
DeMythologizedExegesis
Anothermajordevelopmentintwentiethcenturytheologyalsocontributed,
inRatzinger’sestimation,totheunderminingofatruesenseofthenatureofhuman
historyinlightofdivinerealty.Thetrajectoryofexegesisofeschatologicaltextsin
theNewTestamentalsohadawayofstressingtheimportanceofhistoryontheone
handandthensubsequentlydisposingofitasimportantgiventheparticular
exegeticallens.Thisexegeticaltrajectoryproducedaschoolofinterpretationnotso
muchpoliticalinnature,butmoreprivatizedandexistentialinitsaim.Atthecenter
ofthismovementhasbeenRudolfBultmannwhose“de‐mythologizing”exegesisleft
thegospelslargelydevoidofmuchinthewayofhistoricity.411Withlittleofthe
supernaturalleftoverafterthede‐mythologizingofthegospelaccountsofJesus’life,
411RudolfBultmann,NewTestamentandMythologyandOtherBasicWritings(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1989),168.
197
ministry,deathandresurrection,whatremainsisthecontentofhispreaching.For
thisexistentialistschool,everyreaderineverydayisleftwithaprofoundchoice
thatremainsmerelyprivateregardinghowtoliveone’slifeingreatfreedomand
courage,inimitationofthehistoricalfigureofthepastofJesusofNazareth.Whatis
thereforedemandedisaconstructionofanexistentialistreadingofscripturethat
wouldmotivatethereaderoninteriorlevels,regardlessofthetruthoftheexterior
witnessgiveninthosesamescriptures.AsRatzingerexplainsinhisIntroductionto
Christianity,Bultmannisakeyfigureinthegreatquestionofmoderntheology:Jesus
orChrist?Hetracesthebroadoutlinesofthedebate:“Moderntheologybeginsby
turningawayfromChristandtakingrefugeinJesusasafigurewhoishistorically
comprehensible,onlytomakeanabout‐turnattheclimaxofthismovement‐in
Bultmann‐andfleeintheoppositedirectionbacktoChrist,aflight,however,thatat
thepresentmomentisalreadystartingtochangebackintothenewflightfrom
ChristtoJesus.”412InallofthesefluctuationsfromChristtoJesusandbackagain,
whatseemscommon,forRatzinger,istheemaciatedsenseofthetruenatureof
history.EitherJesusremainsanhistoricizedmodelwho,whilepersonallyand
existentiallyinspiring,isneverthelesslockedawayinthepast,orelsehebecomesa
figurethatfloatsatoptheoceanofhistoryasakindofspiritualizedidealoffaithbut
whoreallyhasverylittlerelevancetothewholeofhistoryitself.413
Ineverycase,then,wheremoderneschatologyhasbecomeproblematic,for
Ratzinger,thereisaproblemwithbiblicalexegesis.Andthefoundationalproblem
412Ratzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004),198.413Ibid.,61‐63.
198
withmuchofcontemporarybiblicalexegesisisanemaciatedunderstandingofthe
natureofhumanhistory.Ratzingerhasattemptedthroughoutthecourseofhis
theologicalcareertobuildamorerobustunderstandingofthenatureofhuman
historyashetookuptheparticularquestionsofeschatologyregardingdeathand
eternallife.Hewouldproceedwiththisendeavorrelyinglargelyonthenatureof
theLogosthatprovidesforboththetranscendentoriginsaswellastheinner‐
coherenceofthescripturalwitnessandallofhumanhistory.Theintelligibilityof
humanhistoryastheplacewhereintheLogoscanbeheardandappropriatedisin
turnthebasisofcreationitself‐theexpressionoftheEternalLogos.Itistothislog‐
centricbasisofatheologyofcreationtowhichRatzingerholds,thatwenowturn.
II.WordSpokenintheOrdersofCreationandHistory
InacollectionofreflectionsontheCatholicunderstandingofCreationand
theFall,RatzingerbeginsinresponsetothetextofGenesis1.Takingforgrantedthe
beautyandgrandeurofthepoetryofthetext,heimmediatelyacknowledgesthe
questionthemodernaudiencebringstothetext:Yes,thisisabeautifulvisionof
createdrealityasgivenbythefree,generousandcreativeloveofGod.Butisit
true?414Afterall,thereisacommonpatterninmuchofmodernthought,even
withinCatholictheologicalcircles,toquietlysetasidethepossibilityofthematerial
creationoftheuniversebyapersonalGodgiventhechallengestothisprospect
offeredbyevolutionarytheoryandanewepistemologyfundamentallyshapedby
strictscientificcriteria.Thisepistemologyhasfurthermoreinfluencedmethodin414JosephRatzinger,IntheBeginning:ACatholicUnderstandingoftheStoryofCreationandtheFall(GrandRapids,MI.:W.B.EerdmansPub.Co,1995),3.
199
theologysuchthatthereisatendencyamongsomemoderntheologianstoconsider
creationmoreinexistentialtermsratherthanontologicalonessincethefacticityof
“creation”astheJudeo‐Christiantraditionhasalwaysunderstoodit,seemsso
fragile.Consequently,weareleft,inRatzinger’sestimation,runningtheriskofa
“huge(ifnottotal)lossoftherealityoffaith,whoseGodnolongerhasanythingto
dowithmatter.”415Heuncoversthetaskbefore,him,then,totakethecreation
narrativeofscripturethatsoclearlyhasliteraryelementsinitthatarereflectiveof
thestuffofmyth,andthenre‐conceiveofthenarrativeinawaythatprovidesa
foundationformaterialrealismintheChristiandoctrineofcreation.
IntheGenesiscreationnarratives,God’sWordisthecauseofseparationof
lightfromdarkness,waterfromland,etc.ThesameWordisalsothepositiveand
efficacioussourceofthecreationofvegetation,landanimals,birdsoftheair,fishof
theseaandultimatelyofmanandwoman.Godsaid‘Lettherebe’theseelementsof
thecreatedorderandindeedtheycametobe.Thereisafundamentalrelianceinhis
thinkinguponthemotifofdivinespeechthatexpresseswithinthescriptural
witnesstheoriginsofcreation.Thisisathemethatrunsconsistentlythroughthe
OldTestament.WethinkoftheBookofWisdomforinstance,whereintheauthor
proclaimstheWisdomofGodthatis“moremobilethananymotion”andisalso
utteredcreativelyas“abreathofthepowerofGod,andanimageofhisgoodness”
(7:24‐25).AndthePsalmistproclaimsinvariouswaysthecentralvisionofcreation,
namelythat:“BythewordoftheLordtheheavensweremade,andalltheirhostby
thebreathofhismouth”(33:6).Thisconsistentlyintimateandhighlypersonalway
415Ibid.,xii.
200
ofconceivingofGod’screativeactionasemanatingfromhisverylipsistakenupin
theNewTestamentaswell,mostfoundationallyinthePrologueoftheGospel
AccordingtoSt.John.Here,theevangelistre‐readstheOldTestamentcreationand
wisdomliteraturethroughthelensoftheexperienceoftheRisenChristwhofrom
“thebeginning”musthavebeentheWordmadeflesh(1:14)‐theverysameWord
whowas“withGod”“inthebeginning”(1:1‐2).Thesearethebuildingblocksof
Ratzinger’sowntheologyofcreation‐thesewordsofGodutteredinscripturethat
areproposedtoemanatefromtheverysameWordthroughwhichallthingscometo
be.416
IntheChristianvision,then,wecanknowthetruthoftheworldaroundus
becausetheworldwascreatedthroughtheLogos.Thiscapacitytoknowisatthe
coreofthehumanconditionasrationalbeings.AsSt.Augustineputit,“Reasonhas
deignedtorevealitselfinthethingsthatappearfamiliartoyou.”417The
intelligibilityofGodandofallthatGodhascreatedisthen,notonlyamatterof
autonomousintellectsapprehendingtruthabouttheobjectsthatsurroundthem.
Rather,theverypossibilityofobtainingknowledgeiscontingentuponthefreegift
ofcommunicationgivenbythepersonalGodwho“deigns”torevealthatwhichis
true,thatwhich,astrue,hasitssourceinTruthitself.Thepossibilityofatleast
somepositiveintelligibilityofGodandGod’screationandthepersonalismthat
underliesthisintelligibilityare,inRatzinger’sview,essentialissuesthatneedtobe
takenupinmoderntheology.GiventhesignificantchallengestotheChristian
416Ibid.,15ff.417Bosely,RichardandMartinTweedale,Editors,BasicIssuesinMedievalPhilosophy(Petersborough:Ontario:BroadviewPress,1997),520.Cf.,Augustine,ConcerningOrder.
201
doctrineofcreationthathaveemergedintheeraofgreatscientificand
technologicaldevelopmentwhichhavesoshapedepistemologicalstandardsin
everywalkoflife,itbecomesthatmuchmorenecessarytore‐presenttheChristian
visionthatisabletoaccountforanintelligiblecreationandanintelligibleandloving
Godwhoisatthesourceofthiscreation.
TheLinkBetweenCreationandHistory
AsIindicatedearlierinthechapteronChristology,akeycomponentof
Ratzinger’s“unfolding”theologyistherecognitionoftheLogosunderstoodfirstof
allasratio,butultimatelymorepersonallyasloveitself.418Themorepersonalthe
expressionofLogosbecomesinsalvationhistory,themorepossibleitbecomesto
thenlookbackoncreationitselfasagiftgivenbyapersonalandlovingGod.Ashe
explainsinIntroductiontoChristianity,inlightofChrist,itbecomesclearthatinthe
Christianvisionallofcreation,indeed,“allbeingisbeing‐thought”andthisbeingis
expressedfreelyandasanexpressionofpersonallove.419Helaterelaboratesonthe
deeprelianceonthereasonabilityofcreationintheChristianvisionandhowthat
reasonabilityculminatesinthepersonalandrelationalstructureofthis
reasonability.Heexplains,“IfChristianbeliefinGodisfirstofallanoptioninfavor
oftheprimacyofthelogos,faithinthepre‐existing,world‐supportingrealityofthe
creativemeaning,itisatthesametimeabeliefinthepersonalnatureofthat
meaning,thebeliefthattheoriginalthoughtwhosebeing‐thoughtisrepresentedby
theworldisnotananonymous,neutralconsciousnessbutrather,freedom,creative
418JosephRatzinger,IntroductiontoChristianity,189.419Ibid.,59.
202
love,aperson.”420HearguesthatjustastheancientGreekworldinfluencedby
emergingphilosophicalschoolsreliantonreasonwasintheprocessofdismissing
theworld‐viewprovidedbytheancientmythscenteredonmanycapriciousgods,
theAbrahamicfaithofthepeopleofIsraelmadeitswayontotheworld’sstageand
offeredakindofunioninonedeitythatwaspersonallyengagedinhumanhistory
whileatthesametimeidentifiedwithreason,withwhattheGreekscalledlogos.
ThenatureanddepthofthisunionoflogosandpersonalrelationshipinoneGod
becomesevidentintheChristiantradition,onlybyfollowingthatnarrativeofhow
thepeopleofIsraelandtheChristianswhofollowthem,experiencedthisGodin
history.OnlybytracingthewholeoftheJudeo‐Christiannarrativeofsalvation
offeredintheBibledoesonecometothisconclusionattheendandbecomeableto
seethatoperativethroughouthasbeentheLogosbeingspokenbyGodinevery
moment.TheGodofbiblicalhistory,then,endsupsheddinglightontheGodofthe
philosophersandviceversasuchthat“thisGodofthephilosophers,whosepure
eternityandunchangeabilityhadexcludedanyrelationwiththechangeableand
transitory,nowappearedwiththeeyesoffaithasthegodofmen,whoisnotonly
thoughtofallthoughts,theeternalmathematicsoftheuniverse,butalsoagape,the
powerofcreativelove.”421Thethreadthatprovidesacoherentbasisforthis
theologyofGodthatembracesboththe“Godofthephilosophers”andthe“Godof
men”istheessentiallylog‐ical,andevenmoreaccurately,dia‐logical,characterof
420Ibid.,158.421Ibid.,143.
203
God.422GodturnsouttobeaGodwhospeakshisWordincreationaswellasinthe
contextofthedialoguethatcomprisesHisrelationshipwithHispeoplethroughout
salvationhistory.Andyet,whilefromoneperspective,thisGodofdialoguecanbe
discernedbothincreationandinsalvationhistory,thepowerofGod’sWordbeing
spokenthroughoutcanalsobecalledintoquestion.Themysteryofdeathisthe
ultimatestumblingblockforthislogos‐basedvisionofbothcreationandhistoryand
itisimportanttonotehowRatzingerdealswiththisunavoidablechallenge.
DeathastheChallengetoLogos
ForRatzinger,itisclearthatwiththeeyesoffaith,therearetimesinthelife
ofthehumanpersonthatthevisionofabeautifulandintelligiblecreationcanbe
seenthroughthelensoftheGodwhohasalsoshownhimselfaspersonaland
presentinhistory.Buttherearealsoplentyofmoments,indeed,manymorethan
wemightliketoadmitthatthisvisionsimplydoesnotringtrue.Creationseems
disorderedandhistoryseemsabsurd.TheLogosseemstoloseitsoperativepower
inmomentsofsufferingandespeciallydeath‐whencreationseemstobedefeated
andhistoryseemstocease.Theconsequencesofthetheologyofcreationthat
Ratzingerestablishesbasedonthemulti‐valenceoftheterminologyofLogos,are
puttothetest,then,whenthefocusofattentionisshiftedfromthefirstprinciplesof
creationandthenatureofbeingtothe“lastthings”ofeschatology.
AidanNicholsdescribesRatzinger’sunderstandingofdeathasaruptureof
communion,ofrelationship.Ratherthandeathbeingseenasaterminationofbeing
422Ibid.,183.
204
orcessationofexistence,itistobeunderstoodindialogicalandrelationalterms.423
InRatzinger’stheology,theproblemofdeathandthepossibilityofeternallifethat
deathseemstoundermineisprimarilyaproblemnotsimplyofhowtoaccountfor
therestorationofbeing,butofhowcommunicationcanbeunderstoodtocontinue
eveninthefaceoftheradicalsilencethatdeathseemstoimpose.InanAngelus
addressatStPeter’sinLentof2011,forexample,Benedictexplainsthe
phenomenonofdeathintheserelationalterms:“Ineffect,deathisforuslikeawall
thatkeepsusfromseeingwhatliesbeyond;andyetourheartdesirestogobeyond
thiswall,andevenifweareunabletoknowwhatithides,weneverthelessthink
aboutit.”424Thelongingto“gobeyondthewall”iscertainlyoperativeinthehuman
heartandyetthatwallisnotabletobetraversedfromourside.Inthesame
addresshesays,itisChristhimselfwho“destroysthewallofdeath”sothatthe
communionofGodandhumanitycancometofruition.
TheDifferenceChristMakes
Tounderstandthenatureofthecommunicationthatcanstillexistevenin
death,itisnecessarytoapproachthequestioninlightofwhathasalreadybeensaid
aboutthecommunicativedimensionoftheoriginofhumanlife.Eschatology,inthis
sense,isnecessarilylinkedtoandinformedbythetheologyofcreation.Sincethe
Wordisthegroundingofallofcreation,precedescreationandistherefore“beyond”
creation,itisalsothecasethatthisWordisnotsilencedatthe“end”ofcreatedlife.
ThesameWordcanbespokenevenacrossthischasmofdeaththatappearstobe
423Nichols,TheThoughtofPopeBenedictXVI,120‐121.424BenedictXVI,AngelusAddress,Rome,April10,2011.
205
thedestructionofcreation.TheWordspeaksintodeathanddrawsthedeadoutof
itssilence.Thiswouldnotbetheconclusionmadeaboutthenatureofdeathand
eternallife,however,ifitwerenotfortheexperienceoftheRisenChrist.Ratzinger
explainsinhisworkof“spiritualChristology,”BeholdthePiercedOne,“Death,which
byitsverynatureistheend,thedestructionofeverycommunication,ischangedby
himintoanactofself‐communication…death,whichputsanendtowordsand
meaning,itselfbecomesaword,becomestheplacewheremeaningcommunicates
itself.”425TheWordspokeninperfectlovefromtheCrossistheWordthat
continuestobespokeneveninthesilenceofdeathandisindeedtheWordthat
overcomesdeathitself.ThisisthecommunicationthatisbasisofChristianhope,for
Ratzinger.Again,theChristologicallenshereisessentialasherecallsSt.Paul’s
proclamationthatifJesusisnottrulyrisen,thenourhopeisinvain(1Cor15:17).426
Becauseofthisfoundationalexperience,thenatureofwhoGodisasspeakerofthe
eternalWordisreconceivedasisthenatureofhumanityasheareroftheWord,
eveninthecontextofdeath.Goddoesnotremainrelegatedtothedistance
choosingtoremainutterlyshroudedinincomprehensibilityanddefinitivesilence.
Andhumanityisnottrappedintheisolationandlonelinessofdeafnesswhenit
comestorelatingtoGod,butratherisableto“hear”,evenindeath.Forthisreason,
deathbecomestheplaceofthemostpoignantcommunicationbetweenGodand
humanityonlywhendeathisseenthroughthehistoricalexperienceofthe
ResurrectionofChrist.Forthepersonwhocanliveinhopeinthefaceofdeath,the
425JosephRatzinger,BeholdthePiercedOne:AnApproachtoaSpiritualChristology(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1986),24.426Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,116.
206
experienceofbeingunitedtoChrist’sowndeathandResurrectionwithinthelifeof
theChurchbecomesthebasisofthathope.
Intheencounterwithdeath,itisclearthatseeingGodsimplyasthesourceof
logosthatgivesreasonandordertocreationisnolongerenoughsinceindeathit
appearsthatcreation’sreasonandordercomestoadefinitiveend.Thehuman
persongetsalimitedviewofthenatureofGodwhenGodisconsideredonlyonthe
basisoftheorderofcreation.AfullerpictureisofferedwhenGodisapproached
undertherubricoftheorderofsalvationhistory.Heexplains,“Godtrulyentersinto
humanaffairsonlywhen,ratherthanbeingpresentmerelyinourthinking,he
himselfcomestowardsusandspeakstous.”427Onlyinthefearandisolationthat
theprospectofdeathcanbring,isthefullnessofthequestionofthehuman
conditionposedandonlyinthefaceofdeath,doesthefullnessofthemeaningofthe
LogosofGodbecomemanifested.TheWordspoken,fromthebeginning,whichis
thebasisofallmaterialexistence,becomesalsothebasisforthepossibilityofhope
inthefaceoftheapparentendofmaterialexistence,forthehumanperson.Inthe
confrontationwiththe“supremeevil”thatisdeath,428thehumanpersonis
confrontedwiththeultimatequestionofthewholeofhisexistencethathasledup
tothatpoint.Whatisthenatureofdeathandwhatiscalledintoquestionaboutthe
wholeofhumanexistenceasaresult?ForRatzingerthesefundamentalhuman
questionsarebestrespondedtonotintheisolationofprivate,abstractspeculation,
butrather,inthecontextofthenarrativeofsalvationhistory.Suchisthefirst
427Ibid.,#23.428Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,9.
207
principleoftheeschatologythatheattemptedtoconstructinthewakeofthe
SecondVaticanCouncilthatcalledforarenewedappropriationofthewholeofthe
Christianmysteryinlightofboththesignsofthetimesandthesalvationhistory
fromwhichthosetimeshademerged.
III.WordSpokeninDeath:BasisofaRenewedEschatology
WhenRatzingermovedin1969totakeupateachingpositionattherecently
establishedUniversityofRegensburg,hebecamereacquaintedwithProfessor
JohannAuerwhomhehadknownafewyearsearlierwhilethetwowereteachingin
Bonn.AuerapproachedRatzingertocollaborateona“ShortCatholicDogmatics”
thathehadbegunin1947.Ratzingeragreed,butbecausehewassoonnamed
archbishopofMunich‐Freising,hewasonlyabletocompleteoneofthetwosections
assignedtohim,namelythevolumeoneschatology.429Helaterreferredtothis
limitedcontributionofhisas“somethingIstillconsidermymostthoroughwork
andtheoneIlaboredovermoststrenuously.”430Heelsewheredescribeshowitis
thatthisworkoneschatologyservedasachanceforhimtorecalibrateina
comprehensivewayhisapproachtodogmaticsasawhole.Havingbeenshaped
deeplynotonlybyhisownstudy,butbythewaythetraditionthathadsorecently
beenrenewedintheSecondVaticanCouncil,hesoughttoletthisrenewalofthe
traditionformhimsuchthathewouldpersonallyapproachthemajortheological
questionsofhisdayinlightofthereturntothesourcesofscriptureandthefathers
429Ibid.,xvii.430JohnL.Allen,CardinalRatzinger:TheVatican'sEnforceroftheFaith(NewYork:Continuum,2000),93.
208
aswellasrecognizingtheneedtodiscernthe“signsofthetimes”whendoing
theology.Heexplains,“AfterthedecisiveturningpointoftheCouncil,Ifirsttried
simplytoconceivemywholedogmaticsanew,goingbackagaintothesourcesand
keepingabreastofwhatwasbeingproduced.Thus,avisionofthewholegradually
grewformethatwasnourishedbythevariousexperiencesandrealizationsIhad
encounteredalongmytheologicalpath.Irejoicedtobeabletosaysomethingofmy
own,somethingnewandyetcompletelywithinthefaithoftheChurch.”431He
realizedthatmuchofwhatmustbe“new”intheapproachtotraditionalquestionsof
eschatologywouldbetheinsightsandchallengesgivenbyrecentbiblical
scholarshipthatpertainedespeciallytotheNewTestament’streatmentof
eschatologicalthemes.432Henotedthatforsometimewithinthebroadercontextof
moderntheology,eschatologyhadquietlyfadedfromimportance.Whathad
seemedtobeanareaconcernedaboutfar‐offandetherealspeculationsregarding
theafterlifehadnowbecomeanareaoftheologythroughwhichtherealnatureof
historyasawholecouldbeexplored.
Intheforewordtotheircombinedworkondogmatictheology,Ratzingerand
Aueragreeonthemethodologyforundertakingtheirwork.Theyindicatethatthey
willproceedwiththequestionsbeforethembyfocusingon:1.thebiblical
foundationsofdoctrine,2.thehistoricaldevelopmentofindividualdoctrinesand3.
“thesystematicinner‐coherenceofdoctrine”takenasawhole.433Ashasbeen
exploredintheearlierchapteronRatzinger’stheologyofdivinerevelationaswell
431Ratzinger,Milestones:Memoirs,19271977(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998),150.432Nichols,TheThoughtofPopeBenedictXVI,110‐133.433Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,xxiii‐xxiv.
209
asChristology,anessentialaspectofhisapproachtobiblicalexegesis,istoembrace
theimpetusgivenbyso‐called“historical‐critical”exegeticalmodelsinsofarasthey
leadthereadertotakeseriouslythehistoricalandculturalconditionspresentatthe
timeoftheeventsrecordedinscriptureaswellasthoseoftheauthorofthetexts.
Atthesametime,authenticbiblicalinterpretationcannotremainlimitedtothose
questions.Thehorizonofthecontemporaryreaderwhoapproachesanygiventext
withtheeyesoffaithmustalwayshaveacentralplaceinthediscourseconcerning
interpretationofscripture,sincewhatisbeingdiscussedisalwaysthelivingWord
ofGodintendedtobringaboutfaithineveryageandculture.Ashelpfulandeven
essentialasallthecontributionsofscientific,historical‐criticalanalysisare,itisalso
thecase,forRatzinger,that“nointerpretationfromthepastisevercompletelyold
hatifinitstimeitturnedtothetextintrueopenness.”434Atrueandopenturningto
thetextsofscriptureandtothe“text”ofthelivingChristiantraditionthathadin
manydifferentwaysappropriatedthewordofGodinhistory,wouldproducetoday
afreshappropriationoftheChristianmysteryforcontemporarytimes.Itisforthis
reasonthatRatzingerandAuerwouldquitedeliberatelytakeupthequestions
beforethemwiththemultifacetedapproachofbiblicalexegesisaswellasthe
historicaldevelopmentoftherelevantdoctrinesinsofarastheyhadbeen
appropriatedinthelifeoftheactualChurchandnotsimplytakenupinthemodeof
“objective”theorizing.
434Ibid.,24.
210
Thisapproachtobiblicalexegesisthatisalwaysconsideredfromtheological
andpastoralhorizonsisespeciallyimportantwhenitcomestoRatzinger’s
eschatology.Bothdisciplineshavetheir“temptations”builtintothem.Heexplains,
“Dogmaticsisalwaystemptedtocorrectthe[exegetical]dataforthesakeofresults.
Exegesiswantstoperformthetaskoftranspositionintothepresent,claimingthe
competenceoftheinterpreterforworkthatsimplycannotbecarriedoutinthat
fashion.”435Appropriatingthemeaningofanancienttextandallowingittoshed
lightoncircumstancesofthepresentandorientinganaudiencetothedemandsof
thefuture,isamultifacetedtaskthatrequiresgreatsensitivitytothemultiplicityof
factorsinvolvedininterpretation.Doingthebestscientificworktograspthedata
thatthehistoricalcriticalmethodcansupply,givesinsightintothetextasitwas
producedandappropriatedinthehistory.Butthenthelimitsofthismethodmust
berecognizedandtheinterpretermustbegintotakeintoconsiderationthewhole
trajectoryovertheagesregardingthemannerinwhichtheoriginaltexthadbeen
interpreted.Ratzingersuggeststhatthisvarietyofviewpointswithintheone
unfoldinghistoryofthetraditionoughttolenditselftofosteringsomehumilityin
theexegeteoftoday,for“Onlybylisteningtothewholehistoryofinterpretationcan
thepresentbepurifiedbycriticismandsobroughtintoapositionofgenuine
encounterwiththetextconcerned.”436Inlightofwhathasalreadybeendescribed
ashistheologyoftheword,aprimarycharacteristicofwhichisits“unfolding”
nature,hisinsistenceonexaminingthewholeofthetraditionandhowithastriedto
435Ibid.,20.436Ibid.,24.
211
articulatevariousaspectsofeschatology,becomesthatmuchmoreintelligible.For
Ratzinger,theintelligibilityofthewholeofthetradition,ofthewholeofhistory,is
possiblepreciselybecauseofitstranscendentorigin.Forthisreason,inorderto
makethis“listeningtothewholehistory”possible,itisfirstnecessarytoestablish
itstranscendent,metaphysicalcharacter.
Oneofthedeficienciesoftheconceptionofhumanhistoryinmoderntimes,
forRatzinger,isthatbecauseofthestrictly“scientific”approachtohistorythathas
becomedominant,aninnerprincipleofunityofhistoryhasbeenlost.Ortoputit
anotherway,theunderstandingofthemetaphysicalnatureofhistoryhasfaded.In
itsplace,historyhascometobeseenaslackinganyunderlyingunitybecauseitis
unhingedfrommetaphysicalrealitythattranscendshistoryevenwhileitreaches
intohistoryaswell.RatzingerrecallsinthiscontexttheobservationmadebyJosef
Pieperofthegrowingphenomenonofthe“materialistictrivializationofdeath”
wherein,ontheonehand,deathistobefearedaboveallrealitiesbecauseitis
impossibletoseeanymeaningorrealitybeyondit.Ontheotherhand,thereisa
senseinwhichinanageoftelevision,“deathispresentedasathrillingspectacle
tailor‐madeforalleviationofthegeneralboredomoflife.”437Here,theshockofthe
imageofdeaththatothersundergoisatleastanoccasionforatemporary
awakeningfromthenumbnessthatcomesinlivingalifedevoidofsupernatural
realityandsignificance.Inbothcases,Ratzinger,argues,“deathisdeprivedofits
437Ibid.,70.
212
characterasaplacewherethemetaphysicalbreaksthrough.”438Theprospectofthe
in‐breakingofthekingdomofGod,ofeternityitself,then,isanoccasionwherethe
naturalrealmendsandthesupernaturalentersin.ForRatzinger,keepingin
tensionthetwo‐foldnatureofhistoryashavingitsoriginsintheeternalLogos
spokenfromaninfiniteGodand“heard”inafiniteearthlyrealm,isessentialto
understandingthefullnessoftheChristianmysteryasitpertainstodeathand
eternallife.Onlyinthiscontextdoesdeathbecomethelocusofthemeetingpointof
historyandeternity.Here,thetheologicalcategoryoftheLogosbecomesthe
necessaryframeworkforbeingabletohandlethetensionsthatariseinthe
questionsposedbyaneschatologyseekingtorespondtothenewculturaland
philosophicalhorizonsofthemodernworld.
TheExegeticalProblemofanImminentEnd
Tobegintoformulatethisrenewedeschatology,thefirsttask,inRatzinger’s
mind,wastoaddresscurrentexegeticalchallenges.Inthiscase,themostpressing
questionandtheonethathadre‐introducedthespecializationofeschatologytoa
prominentplaceinthetheologicalconversation,wastheneedtograpplewiththe
natureofJesus’preachingandaspectsoftheNewTestamentthatsuggestedavision
oftheimminentendoftheworld.439Henotesthatofthe122timesintheNew
Testamentthatthephrases“KingdomofGod”or“Kingdomofheaven”comeup,90
ofthemarerecountedascomingdirectlyfromJesus’ownpreaching.Indeed,
Ratzingeragreeswiththeexegeticalopinionthatthisisthe“trueLeitmotiv”ofJesus’
438Ibid.439Ibid.,19.
213
preaching.440ThefactthatthementionoftheKingdomofGod/heavenarealmost
alwaysinthecontextoftheirbeing“close”or“athand”or“amongus”suggestsa
consistentthemethatindicatesthereignofGod,whoiseternal,isbeginningtotake
rootonearth,inthepersonofJesus,intherealmofthehistorical.Ratzingerargues
thattheobjectofJesus’preachingaboutthekingdomofGod/heavenis“notofa
heavenlyrealitybutofsomethingGodisdoingandwilldointhefuturehereon
earth.”441AndyetitremainsthatitisGodwhoisdoingtheactionandsointhis
locusoftheKingdomofGod/heaven,historyandeternityaremeetingandinthat
meeting,historyisfacingits“end”i.e.,itiscomingtoperfectionandfullnessinthe
personofJesus.
ImplicitinthisproclamationofJesus,forRatzinger,isthatonewayor
anotherthekingdomofeternitywasintheprocessoftransformingandovercoming
somehow,thekingdomofearth,ofhumanhistory.ThisistosaythatJesuswas
suggestingthattheendoftheworldasweknowitwasnowuponus.Andyet,
surely,the“end”didnotcome.Nothingexternallyintheworldseemstohave
happenedthatsuggestedanythingwasanydifferentthanithadbeenbeforeJesus
appearedonthescene.IftheseNewTestamentsentiments,includingthedirect
preachingofJesus,didindeedexpecttheimminentendoftheworld,whatareweto
makeofthetrustworthinessofthescripturalwitnesswhen“theend”didnotindeed
come?Andsince“theend”didnotcome,canthecontemporaryChurchstillfind
thesetextstrustworthyinherefforttounderstandthemeaningofhistoryandwhat
440Ibid.,24‐25.441Ibid.,26.
214
toexpectindeathandeternallife?442IstheNewTestamentandevenJesus’
particularteachingreliableinthisareaofthequestionsofdeathandeternallife?
“SchemaandReality”
Ratzinger’sapproachtotheseexegeticalproblemsallowsforadiversityof
interpretiveconclusions.Ontheonehand,somehistoriansofthetextsmaybe
correctinconcludingthattheNewTestamentauthorsandtheiraudiencesmayhave
thoughtthattheendwouldbenear‐intheirownlifetimes.Thisdidnothappen.
Butthefactthattheywereprovedwronginonesenseofthequestion,doesnot
meanthatthewritingsthemselvesareinerror.InEschatology,Ratzingerdescribes
thisinterpretivetensionthatisinherentlybuiltintothescripturesasatension
between“literaryschemaandreality.”443Evenfortheauthorsthemselvesofthe
NewTestament,heexplains,“whatintereststhemisnotthequestionofexact
chronologicalsuccessionorapossiblecausalityofdevelopmentbuttheinnerunity
ofthewhole.”444Thereisahorizonfromwhichthesetextswerewrittenandwithin
whichthetextsaretobeproperlyinterpretedthatischaracterizedasacoherent
narrativeofsalvationhistoryalwaysbeingplayedout.Inthemomentofthewriting
ofanyofthegiventexts,completeunderstandingofthisinnerunityofhistoryis
impossiblefortheparticularauthors.Andyet,inthemindofGod,thewordsspoken
inprophecyinscriptureareindeedintimatelylinkedandunitedtotheultimate
realitythatisyettounfoldforthosestilllivingonearth.Thistensionbetween
schemaandrealityismostclearlyuncovered,forRatzinger,intheproblemof
442Ibid.,19.443Ibid.,46ff.444Ibid.,41.
215
interpretingthepersonofJesusinlightoftheOldTestament.Hewrites,“Thewords
oftheOldTestament,inwhichIsrael’sfaithexperienceofthewordofGodis
reflected,anticipatethehistoryofJesus,thelivingWordofGodinthisworld.Itis
onlyinlightofthatearlierwordthatthefigureofJesusbecomestheologically
intelligible.Jesusisinterpretedonitsbasis,andonlythuscanhiswholeexistence
beacknowledgedasitselfsubstantially‘Word.’”445Tospeak,then,ofGod’sword
beingspokenthroughouthistory,culminatingintheWorditselfinJesus,givesthe
fundamentalhermeneutickeyforunderstandingallofhistory,inRatzinger’s
theology.ItispreciselythecharacteristicoftheWordthatisbothparticularinits
expressionandyetopenwithrespecttoitsmeaningandintelligibilitythatit
becomessofruitfulasacentralmotifforunderstandingdivineself‐communication
andthenatureandmeaningofhistoryitself.
HermeneuticoftheWordinHistory
So,forRatzinger,thefoundationalinterpretiveprinciplethatholdstogether
“schemaandreality”isoneoftheWordunfoldinginhistory.Whatcoheresinthe
mindofGodismadeapparenttohumanityonlyovertimeasthewholenarrative
unfolds.Ratzingerexplains,“Thefundamentalandall‐importanthermeneutical
insighthereisthatsubsequenthistorybelongsintrinsicallytotheinnermomentum
ofthetextitself.Thatis,itdoesnotprovideretrospectivecommentaryonthetext.
Rather,throughtheappearingoftherealitywhichwasstilltocome,thefull
dimensionsofthewordcarriedbythetextcometolight.”446Andso,ifthereseems
445Ibid.,43‐44.446Ibid.,42.
216
toariseasenseofincoherenceorconfusionwhenreadingpartsofthetextof
scriptureinisolation,includingthewordsofJesushimself,thisconfusionneednot
deraileffortstounderstandthemeaningofthetext.Forthefullnessofthemeaning
ofanygivenportionofscripturemakessenseultimatelyonlyinlightoftheheartof
thetestimonyofscripturethatpertainstoJesus’resurrectionfromthedead.Onlyin
lightofthisrealitydoallthepreviousaspectsoftheliteraryschemasofscripture
becomeintelligible.Furthermore,onlyinkeepingthistensionof“schemaand
reality”operativeinan“authenticappropriationoftheWord”isthecontemporary
readerandbelieverabletoavoidthetwinpitfallsof“archaismandmodernism.”447
For,“IssuingasitdoesfromthecrucifiedandrisenChrist,thewordindicates
directionwhichiswideenoughtoreceiveallrealityintoitself,yetclearenoughto
confrontitwithadefinitemeasuringrodofitsown.”448Thetwinaspectsofboththe
particularityandtheopennessof“theword”thatRatzingerreliesupon,becomes
essentialforthetaskofunderstandingChristandhismessageinanevernewwayas
itsmeaningcontinuestobeappropriatedinhistory.
DiscoveringtheKingdominPerson
ForRatzinger,thecontemporarypersonoffaith,helpedbythesehistorical
andexegeticalinvestigations,remainsfree,andevenobliged,toengagethetextof
revelationinthepresent,bythelightoffaith,inordertointerpretthemassources
offaith.Thisactioniswhatdrivestheengineoftradition,alwaysanchoredinthe
testimonyofthepastandalwaysattemptingtoappropriatethetruthofGod’swords
447Ibid.,43.448Ibid.,43.
217
anddeedsinhistorytoinformthepresentandfuturelifeoftheChurch.ForJesusto
proclaimthattheKingdomofheavenisnear,then,ledmanytoexpecttheendofthe
worldintheverynearfuture.Butasthenarrativeunfolds,andinlightofJesus’
deathandResurrection,itbecomesclearthatthefullnessofthecomingofthe
Kingdomisnotanexpectationaboutchronologicaleventsinadistantfuture
conceivedinalinearfashion,butaboutanopennesstoanencounterwiththe
Kingdominpersoninthepresent.449RatzingerrecallstheexegesisofOrigenfrom
thethirdcenturyinwhichhecallsJesustheautobasileia,“theKingdomin
person.”450Onlyinretrospect,aftertheResurrection,andguidedbytheSpirit,does
theChristiancommunitybegintorealizethefullimplicationsofwhoJesushadbeen
allthewhileintheirmidst.Andtheyalsocametorealizethatheremainedintheir
midstnow,astheRisenOne.AndsoinlightofthenewrecognitionofJesus’identity
astheeternalWordintheflesh,theyalsobegintounderstandthemeaningofhis
wordsinanewway.SoitisthatJesus’preachingabouttheclosenessofthe
kingdomofheavenandtheclosenessoftheendofhistorymustbeunderstoodin
lightofthetrueidentityofJesushimself.TheChristiancommunitydiscoversthatas
theverypresenceofGodinthefleshinhistory,inhisveryperson,Jesushimselfis
thepresenceoftheKingdomofGodofwhichhespoke.Heisthefullnessandinthat
sensethe“end”ofhumanhistoryinhisveryself.Consequently,Ratzingerargues,
“Eschatology’smeaninganddrivingforcedependuponthepowerofwaitingon
Christ,nottemporalexpectationsoftheworld’sendortransformation,nomatterof
449Ibid.,34.450Ibid.
218
whatkind.”451DuetothisChristologicalhermeneutic,then,theonlyproperwayto
understandanyoftheideasassociatedwitheschatologyandthenatureofhistory
mustbeinlightofthepersonofChrist.
EschatologyandHistoricalConsciousness
WemightpausebrieflytorecalltheoriginsofRatzinger’sowndevelopmentof
thoughtonthismatteroftheChristologicalhermeneuticusedinderivingan
eschatologythatisundergirdedbyaparticulartheologyofhistory.Itgoesbackto
hisstudyofSt.Bonaventure’sresponsetoJoachimofFioreandthe“spiritualists”
whofollowedhim.452Joachim’sattempttointerpretthehistoricaldevelopmentsin
thelifeoftheChurchresultedinhiscontroversialandultimatelycondemnedvision
ofhistoryandrevelationthatsuggestedtheChurchhadenteredathirdandfinal
stageofhistoryledbytheHolySpiritandthatthesecondChristologicalandvisible
ecclesiologicalagewaspassingaway.RatzingerobservesthatitfelltoBonaventure
totaketheinsightsofferedbyJoachimandmakegooduseofthemfornew
theologicalreflectionwhileholdingtotheviewthatthefullnessoftherevelationof
GodhadindeedbeenalreadygiveninthepersonofJesusChrist.Still,herecognized,
alongwithJoachim,thatnewthingswerehappeninginthelifeoftheChurch.
Thoughtheydidnotusetheterminology,bothJoachimandlaterBonaventure,
recognized“development”inthelifeoftheChurchandtheneed,therefore,fora
kindof“historicalconsciousness”tosortouthowtointerpretthesemovements
overtimewithintheChurch.BonaventureplacedChristnotasonesignificantfigure451Ibid.,11.452JosephRatzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,(Chicago:FranciscanHeraldPress),1989.
219
occupyingaparticularmomentwithinalinearhistoryofsalvation,butratheratthe
centerofakindofconcentric,circularor,better,sphericalmodelofhistory.This
viewofsalvationhistorywasopentodevelopmentofnewexpressionsinhistory,
whilealwaysremainingrootedandgroundedinitscoreandsourceoflifeinthe
figureofJesusChrist,theLogosfromwhichallotherlogoiflowed.InRatzinger’s
view,Bonaventure’sworkingoutofthechallengesposedbyJoachimledtoa“new
historicalconsciousness”intheCatholictheologicaltradition.Indeed,forRatzinger,
whiletheideasofthe“spiritualage”wereultimatelycondemnedanddiscarded
fromthetradition,thisnewsenseofanhistoricalconsciousness,isthe“true
significanceofJoachim.”453ItseemsthathisstudyofJoachimandBonaventureon
thetheologicalnatureofhumanhistoryproducedafoundationalprinciplefor
Ratzinger’sstudyofthewholeoftheChristianmysterywhenhestatesthatbecause
oftheIncarnation,“theChurchandredemptionarerenderedhistoricalinan
entirelynewwaywhichcannotbeamatterofindifferenceforthehistoryofdogma
norforsystematictheology.”454
SeveralyearsafterhisstudyofBonaventurewascompleted,andwhenhetook
upthetaskofofferingacontemporaryeschatology,thisbasicinsightremainedwith
Ratzinger.HisagreementwithAuerthattheirmethodologyinEschatologywould
involvethethreestepprocessoftheuseofcurrentexegesis,theanalysisofthe
historicaldevelopmentofdogmaticstatementsaswellasasystematicanalysisof
theinner‐coherenceoftheaspectsofeschatologyasitrelatestootheraspectsof
453Ibid.,106.454Ibid.,107.
220
theology,seemstobeatwentiethcenturyapplicationofmanyofthesameinsights
appliedbyBonaventureashetookupthechallengestotheologyposedbyJoachim.
Consequently,Ratzingerrefusesthetemptationtotrytowritethedefinitiveword
ontheseissuesandratherforceshisreaderstoconsiderthewholeunfolding
narrativeoftheChristianappropriationoftheseissuesovermanycenturies.Only
withthisbroadperspective,canwe,Ratzingerargues,inacontemporaryage,begin
tounderstandthesemysteriesthathaveremainedsorichlymultivalentsincethe
beginningofthelifeoftheChurch.
Maranathavs.DiesIrae
Asakindofcasestudyofanapplicationofthishistoricallysensitive
methodologyineschatology,Ratzingertakesupthecontrastdrawnbymany
theologiansthatexistswithintheChristiantraditionbetweentheancientbiblical
proclamation,MaranathaandthethirteenthcenturyLatinhymn,DiesIrae.455Ifitis
truethatthelexcredendiisformedbythelexorandi,whatarewetoconcludeabout
theChristianbeliefregardingthefinaljudgmentwhenlookingatthesetwo
apparentlydivergingprayertexts?ThenoteofconfidenceinGod’smercystruckin
theutteranceMaranatha,askingHimtocomeclose,standsinsharpcontrastwith
thespiritoffearofthatsameGod’swraththatcharacterizestheDiesIrae.Whatto
dowiththistension?Ratzingerfirstfocusesonanexaminationoftheprayers
themselves.BeginningwiththeMaranatha,henotesthatcurrentexegetical
scholarshipwassomewhatdividedbetweenthepossibilitythattheMaranathawas
455Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,4‐6.
221
apleaaskingthattheLordmightcomecloseandotherswhosaytheprayerisa
proclamationofwhathasalreadyoccurred‐“theLordhascome.”456Ineithercase,
however,theprayerstrikesanoteofconfidenceinthecomingofthesaviorwhois
atthesametimethejudgeofhumanity.Takingacuefromtheeschatologicalsense
ofthisproclamation,thereseemstobeaminglingintheoneidentityofChristas
bothJudgeandSaviorintheancientChurchthatseemstoallowthefaithfulto
approachtheendtimes‐whenevertheymightcome‐withconfidence,hopeand
evenjoy.
Inadifferenthistoricalandculturalsetting,however,inthecaseofthe
emergenceoftheDiesIraeinthemedievalChurch,theprospectofjudgmentseems
tohavebeenseparatedoutfromthemercyoftheSavior.Whilethiscertainlyseems
tobethecase,Ratzingerpointsoutthattherewerealsootherstrandsofliturgical
lifeeveninthemedievalChurchthatkeptalivetherealityofthemercyoftheSavior
andthehopewithwhichthefaithfulcouldapproachdeath.Hepointsheretothe
developmentoftheLitanyoftheSaintsthatbecamesuchacrucialcommunalprayer
inthemedievalChurch.Inthelitanyandinthecommunionofsaintsthatitcalls
upon,heargues,thefaithfulfindtheirtrueidentityandhomeasChristianswhocan
faceearthlydeathwithconfidence.Inthelitany,heexplains,theChristian“gathers
theredeemedofallagesaroundhimandfindssafetyundertheirmantle.This
signifiesthatthewallsseparatingheavenandearth,andpast,presentandfuture,
arenowasglass.TheChristianlivesinthepresenceofthesaintsashisownproper
456Ibid.,6.
222
ambience,andsolives‘eschatologically’.”457Thus,inRatzinger’sschema,withChrist
atthecenterofhistory,finaljudgmentbecomesnotnecessarilythestuffoffearand
dread,butofhopeandjoybasedonthepersonalencounterwiththecenterof
historyhimself,JesusChrist.458WhenRatzingerconsidersthewholeofthe
Christiantraditionofthelexorandi,then,theunderlyingconfidenceinthe
Maranatha,shedsmorelightoneschatologythanthefearelicitedbytheDiesIrae
whenitisseparatedfromthetrueidentityofChristwhosemercyfulfillshisjustice.
ThepersonofChristwhofacesdeathanddefeatsitinlove,then,becomesessential
foratheologybasedonhopeevenwhenconfrontingdeath.Moreprecisely,the
figureofChrist,asheismetinthelifeoftheChurch,especiallyinthecelebrationof
theliturgy,iscrucialinfillingoutthecontextofgenuineeschatologicalhopeinthe
Christianvision,anitistothisaspectofRatzinger’srenewedeschatologythatwe
nowturn.
SpeSalvi
Benedictacknowledgesinhissecondencyclical,SpeSalvi,onthenatureof
Christianhope,thatwhendiscussionmovesfromtheoriginsandnatureofcreated
realitytothefinalquestionsposedattheendoflife,wecanandmustask,“What
maywehopefor?”459Thefulfillmentofthishopeeveninthefaceofdeathisoffered
andgivenaforetasteinmyriadwaysintheliturgicallifeoftheChurch.Indeed,in
thelifeoftheChurch,perhapsthebestexplanationsofthesemysteriescome
preciselyinthecontextoftheliturgicalsetting.Foritisinthesesettings,thatthe457Ibid.,9.458Ratzinger,TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure,108459Benedict,OnChristianHope:SpeSalvi,EncyclicalLetter(Washington,DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2007),#23.
223
peopleofGod,theChurch,aremostopenedupandreceptivetotruly“hearing”the
Wordspokentothem.InanticipationofthecelebrationofthePaschalMystery,the
universalChurchproclaimstheWordofGodthatcallsthefaithfullistenertobe
opentotheWordthatisspokenandcanbeheardevenacrosstheboundariesof
death.ForChristians,being“united”toChristinbaptismisanexperienceofhaving
been“engraftedontothedeathofChrist.”460Thefoundationalexperienceof
baptismasaparticipationinthedeathofChristinordertoshareinhisvictoryover
deathinhisResurrection,isafurtherhermeneuticalkeytotheproblemofdeath
thatBenedictoffersinSpeSalvi.461
Death,aswehavesaid,presentsitselftothehumanpersonastheapparent
silencingoftheWordoflife.ButfortheChristian,hopeconsistsincontinuingto
havefaiththattheWordisbeingspokenfromGodeveninthecontextofdeath.This
isatthecoreofthevisionofthepaschalmystery.Butthereisamutingofthisword
ofhopeincontemporarywesterncultureespecially.Thismutingispartofthe
landscapethatBenedictaddressesinhisintroductoryobservationsintheencyclical.
PreciselyinculturesthathavebeenhistoricallyChristian,thewordofhope,perhaps
becauseithasbecometoofamiliar,hasbeendrownedout.Heexplains,“Wewho
havealwayslivedwiththeChristianconceptofGod,andhavegrownaccustomedto
it,havealmostceasedtonoticethatwepossessthehopethatensuesfromareal
encounterwiththisGod.”462Ontheonehand,theonethingthehumanpersonlongs
forisconfidencethatthereishopeforthefullnessoflife,eveneternallife.Yetthere460Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,115.461Seealsothechapterentitled“OntheTheologyofDeath”inDogmaandPreaching:ApplyingChristianDoctrinetoDailyLife(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2011),243‐254.462Benedict,SpeSalvi,#3.
224
isalsosomethinginthehumanheartthatmakesusbalkatthisprospect.Among
otherreasons,thereisafearthateternallifemightturnintoakindofrelentless
drudgery.Afterall,hewrites,“’Eternal’,infact,suggeststoustheideaofsomething
interminable,andthisfrightensus.”463Aslongaseternallifeandthehopethat
makesthislifepossibleremainofferedintherealmofabstractionandproposition,
thisfearisjustified.ButasBenedictconsistentlyemphasizes,Christianhopedoes
notflowfromanideaofferedtothemind,butratheraconcreteencounterthatis
availabletothewholeperson.Movingfromconcepttoencounter,then,makesall
thedifferenceinopeningacontemporaryculturebackuptoauthentichope.Again,
thisisahopethatisgroundedintheLogosofGodthatisspokentohumanityforthe
sakeofrelationship.
Hopeispossible,Benedict’sargumentgoes,onlyinthecontextofthis
relationship.Thisdialogicalandrelationalmodelofhopeisincontrasttothe
secularvirtueofmereoptimism.Optimism,forRatzinger,isaproductofan
ideologyofprogress.Itisembracedandcultivatedintheisolationofindividualism.
Thisindividualismrefusestheneedfordependenceuponanotherthatisnecessary
forrelationshipwithinthehumancommunityandultimatelywithrespecttoGod.
Hope,then,isnotanintellectualconclusiondrawnfromanideologythoughtabout
inisolation,butrathertheproductofadynamicrelationship,anencounter.He
explainssomethingoftheeffectivenessofthisdynamismashedescribesthepower
oftheGospelitselfinhisintroductiontoSpeSalvi:
463Ibid.,#12.
225
Sonowwecansay:Christianitywasnotonly‘goodnews’—thecommunicationofahithertounknowncontent.Inourlanguagewewouldsay:theChristianmessagewasnotonly‘informative’but‘performative’.Thatmeans:theGospelisnotmerelyacommunicationofthingsthatcanbeknown—itisonethatmakesthingshappenandislife‐changing.Thedarkdooroftime,ofthefuture,hasbeenthrownopen.Theonewhohashopelivesdifferently;theonewhohopeshasbeengrantedthegiftofanewlife.464
Ifhopeisnotinformativebutperformative,whatisitthatisachievedinit?
What“thingshappen”?Inthenextsectionheaddressesthequestion,“inwhatdoes
thishopeconsistwhich,ashope,is‘redemption’?”465Byusingtheillustrationof
JosephineBakhita,PopeBenedictdrawsimmediatelyupontheexampleofa
recentlycanonizedsainttoillustratethishopethat“isredemption.”466Bywayof
Bakhita’slife,heisabletoprovideakindoficonofthelibertythatcomeswith
comingtoknowthepersonofChristandhowthroughthisencounter,through
enteringintodialoguewithChristandthereforecultivatingarealrelationshipwith
him,one’spresentcircumstancesofsufferingcanbeapproachedwithnew
confidence.JosephineBakhita,the19thcenturySudaneseslave‐turned‐religious
sisterhadbeensoldnumeroustimesandenduredseveralbrutalbeatingsatthe
handsofvariousmasters.Shewasultimatelysoldintoservitudetoamasterwho
tookupresidenceinVenice.Whilethere,Benedictdescribeshercomingtoknowa
verydifferentkindofmaster,orparoninVenetiandialect.Herecountsher
experience:
Uptothattimeshehadknownonlymasterswhodespisedandmaltreatedher,oratbestconsideredherausefulslave.Now,
464Ibid.,#2.465Ibid.,#3.466Ibid.,#3‐4.
226
however,sheheardthatthereisa“Paron”aboveallmasters,theLordofalllords,andthatthisLordisgood,goodnessinperson.ShecametoknowthatthisLordevenknewher,thathehadcreatedher—thatheactuallylovedher.Shetoowasloved,andbynoneotherthanthesupreme‘Paron’,beforewhomallothermastersarethemselvesnomorethanlowlyservants.Shewasknownandlovedandshewasawaited.Whatismore,thismasterhadhimselfacceptedthedestinyofbeingfloggedandnowhewaswaitingforher‘attheFather'srighthand.’Nowshehad‘hope’—nolongersimplythemodesthopeoffindingmasterswhowouldbelesscruel,butthegreathope:‘Iamdefinitivelylovedandwhateverhappenstome—IamawaitedbythisLove.Andsomylifeisgood.’467
BenedictgoesontoexplainthefurthertransformationthatcameinSt.
Josephine’slifethankstothewordthatshehadheardregardingthisnewkindof
relationshipwithanewkindofparon.Uponrecognizingthatsheisloved,thenext
stepwastoletotherscometoknowthisfreedomthatshehadonlyrecently
discovered.Thenextstepintheunfoldingofhernewidentityinrelationshipwith
Christwasmissionaryincharacter.Uponbeingbaptized,confirmedandreceiving
firstcommunionfromthePatriarchofVenicein1890,shewouldbereceivedinto
theCanossianSisterswithwhomshebecameakindofmissionarywithinItaly
tellingthestoryofherexperienceof“theliberationthatshehadreceivedthrough
herencounterwiththeGodofJesusChrist.”Benedictgoesontoexplain,“shefelt
shehadtoextend[thismessage],ithadtobehandedontoothers,tothegreatest
possiblenumberofpeople.Thehopeborninherwhichhad‘redeemed’hershe
couldnotkeeptoherself;thishopehadtoreachmany,toreacheverybody.”468
Here,encapsulatedinthisonestoryofonesaint,isreallythepatternforthelife
ofthewholeChurch,inRatzinger’stheology.Onewhoiscaughtinslavery,darkness467Ibid.,#3468Ibid.
227
andsufferingcomestoheartheWordofGodinhisorherlife.Astheseedofthat
Wordisplanted,itbeginstotakeroot.ThemoreclearlytheWordofGodisheardin
thatperson’slife,thegreaterthetransformationthatbeginstounfold.Thisisa
transformationundergonenotinisolation,butalwaysinthecontextoftheecclesial
communitycomprisedofmanywhoseektoheartheWordtogether.Thehearingof
thiswordculminatesinthesacramentallifeoftheChurchwheretheWordisgiven
intheflesh,inlove.UponreceptionofthisWordintheflesh,theonewhohasbeen
transformedbythislove,seekstorespondinlove,intheflesh.ForBakhita,as
Benedictportraysherstory,shefirstheardaboutthepossibilityofanewkindof
Paron,butthatlevelofhearinginvolvedonlywordsthatcouldeasilyfadeaway.Not
untilshe“heard”thatwordofpromiseindeedsaswellaswords,didthatpromise
begintotakeflesh.Sheencounteredthatwordintheactiontakenbyherownerin
givingherfreedom.Andshecontinuedtoexperiencethatfreedomshediscovered
inChristinthecontextofprayer,especiallyinthesacramentalencounterwith
Christ.InusingSt.JosephineBakhitaasakindoficonofhope,Benedictpointsto
thetheologicalrealitythathopeisnotamereideaofprogressthatoneassentstoin
theintellectualrealm,butanexperienceofthewholepersonasthepersoncomes
intocontactwithGodwhohascomecloseinJesusChrist.Theencounterwiththe
personofChrististhetruesourceofhope,inRatzinger’sview.Itistothis
ChristologicalshapeofhopeasBenedictseesit,thatweturnnow.
228
HopeinEnteringthe“I”ofChrist
InTheYesofJesusChrist,469Ratzingerdescribesthe“situationtoday”wherein
peoplearetornbetweenthedesireforGodandtheimpulsetobe“free”fromGodto
seekthemoreimmediateneedsanddesiresofourhearts.Assuch,“wecannot
breakfromGod,butneitherdowehavethepowertobreakthroughtoGod:with
ourownresources,wecannotbuildthebridgesthatwouldleadtoadefinite
relationshipwiththisGod.”470Inlightofthisdilemmaonthehumansideofthat
chasm,RatzingerexplorestheChristianproposalthatuncoversthepowerofthe
loveGodhasforhumanityinhiscreative“assent,”onemightcallit,thatGodmakes
tohumanity.Since“humanbeingscannotcompletelydispelthestrangetwilight
thathangsoverthequestionoftheeternal,”heexplains“Godmustcrossoverto
themandtalktothemifrealrelationsaretobeestablishedwithhim.”471God
definitivelysays“yes”tohumanityintheIncarnationandontheCross.Drawing
uponJosefPieper’sdefinitionofloveintheaffirmation,“itisgoodthatyouexist,”472
heexplainsthepowerofthisutterancewhenGoddirectsittohumanity.Toreceive
thatwordthatis“yes”fromGod,thatWordthatistheoriginofcreationitself,when
itisutteredinthecontextofman’sisolationfromGod,thisutterancebecomes
anothercreativeact,andfromthosewords,anewcreationemerges.Inordertobe
abletolive,humanbeingsneedthisaffirmation.“Biologicalbirthisnotenough,”he
469Benedict,TheYesofJesusChrist:ExercisesinFaith,HopeandLove(NewYork:Crossroad,2005).470Ibid.,26.471Ibid.,26‐27.472Ibid.,89.
229
writes.“Mancanonlyaccepthispersonality,his‘I’inthepoweroftheapprovalof
hisbeingthatcomesfromanother,from‘you’.”473ForRatzinger,manisfirstableto
fullyacceptthispersonalityinthepersonofChristwhofullyreceivesapprovalfrom
theFather.InthepersonofChrist,then,itbecomespossiblefortheI‐Thou
affirmationofGodforhumanity,begunincreationandwhichcontinuestounfoldin
salvationhistory,toreachitsfulfillmentintheeschaton.474Whatallowsthis
affirmationtoultimatelytakeplaceandcometofulfillmentisthedialogical
structureoftherelationshipbetweenGodandhumanity.
Theeschatologicaldimensionofthisdynamicofenteringintothe“I”ofChrist
becomesclearerasRatzingerexplainsthelinkthatexistswithinJesus’ownteaching
abouthimselfinJohn’sgospel.Thebreadoflifediscourseofthesixthchapterand
thenarrativeoftheraisingofLazarusintheeleventh,mutuallyinformeachotherin
thisregard.475ForRatzinger,toenterintocommunionwithJesusistoenterinto
communionwithGodwhobothtranscendshistoryandwhohastakenfleshwithinit
aswell.Thiscommunionservesasakindofbridge,then,betweenhistoryand
eternity,deathandeternallife.InthenarrativeofLazarus’deathandresuscitation
inJohn11,RatzingernotesthatevenbeforeJesus’ownresurrection,thereisa
promiseofthebridgeacrossdeath.HiswordtoMartha,“Iamtheresurrection”is
spokeninconjunctionwithhisdeedofraisinghisfriendfromthedead.The
consistencyofhiswordanddeedsignifyinganunderlyingpresencethatspans
earthlyandtranscendentrealityisechoedalsoineucharisticterms.Ratzinger
473Ibid.,90.474Ibid.,91.475Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,117.
230
conjoinstheserealitieswhenhewrites,“ThebondwithJesusis,evennow,
resurrection.Wherethereiscommunionwithhim,theboundaryofdeathis
overshothereandnow.Itisinthisperspectivethatwemustunderstandthe
DiscourseontheEucharistinJohn6.FeedingonJesus’wordandflesh,thatis,
receivinghimbybothfaithandsacrament,isdescribedasbeingnourishedbythe
breadofimmortality.Theresurrectiondoesnotappearasadistantapocalyptic
eventbutasanoccurrencethattakesplaceintheimmediatepresent.Whenever
someoneentersthe‘I’ofChrist,hehasenteredstraightawayintothespaceof
unconditionallife.”476This“spaceofunconditionallife”thatishopedforbeyond
thislife,issimultaneouslyenteredintointhislifeinthesacramentalencounterof
theChurchwiththeLord,intheEucharisticliturgy.Andthisencounterispossible
onlybecauseofwhatisaccomplishedinhistoryinthedeathandResurrectionof
Jesus.ToseemorecloselyhowRatzingerseestheentranceintothe“IofChrist”is
contingentontheResurrectionofChrist,weturnnowtothekeytothislink,inmy
estimation‐thefactthattheResurrectionofChrististhemomentinhistorywherein
thedialoguebetweenGodandhumanityisfulfilled.
V.DialogicalFulfillmentofResurrection
TohelpformulateanoverviewofRatzinger’sthoughtonJesus’Resurrection,
itisusefultostartwithhisownattemptatsuchanoverviewthatheoffered
recently,lookingbackonhisnowdecadesoldtreatmentofeschatology.Inhis
presentdayforewordforthatthirtyyear‐oldwork,hisstartingplaceisthe
476Ibid.
231
scripturalwitnessitselfwhereinherecallsthechallengeposedtoJesusbythe
Sadduceesonthepossibilityofresurrectionfromthedead.Jesuscallsthem“greatly
misled”indenyingtheresurrectionsinceGodhadalreadyrevealedHimselfinthe
scripturesoftheJewishpeopleastheGodofAbraham,IsaacandJacobandis
therefore“notGodofthedeadbutoftheliving”(Mk12:26).BenedictseesinJesus’
answertotheSadduceesakeytounderstandingproperlythewholeoftheChristian
mysterythatincludesboththefoundationsofcreationaswellasthevisionoflife
afterdeathintheeschaton.“Thistheologicalinterpretation,”thatJesusoffers,he
argues,“isjustasmuchadia‐logicalinterpretationofthehumanbeingandhuman
immortality.”477Hethenexplainsinafootnotethefollowingdistinction:“’theo‐logy’
disclosesadiscourseabouttheos,God.A‘dia‐logical’interpretationisasharingof
thelogosintheformofaconversation(diálogos).”478Whatseemstohavepassed
awayindeath,fromtheperspectiveoftheSadducees,whichisthatofanearthlyand
historicalperspective,hasindeednotpassedaway,fromtheperspectiveofscripture
asJesusinterpretsit.Thewholeofhumanhistory,infact,ispresentwithinthe
contextofthedialoguethatiseternallytakingplacewithinGod.Sincetherewould
benocreationnorhumanhistoryifthesehadnotemanatedfromwithinGodwhois
acommunionofrelationsandthereforecharacterizedbydialogicaldynamics,allof
creationandhistoryfindsitsprincipleofcoherencepreciselywithinthisdynamicof
dialogue.Itisforthisreason,therefore,thattheChristianunderstandingofthe
groundofthepossibilityofhumanimmortalityresidesinthefactthatweexistfrom
477Ibid.,xx.478Ibid.,footnote#5.
232
theverybeginninginthemindofGod.Hesaysthatweexistatallonlybecause“we
areinscribedintoGod’smemory.InGod’smemory,wearenotashadow,amere
recollection.RemaininginGod’smemorymeanswearealiveinafullsenseoflife.
Wearefullya‘we’.”479Benedictgives,then,inthisonedescriptionofhuman
existencebeingsustainedfromwithinthemind,thememoryofGod,thegrounding
forboththeoriginsandthe“end”ofhumanexistence.Evenbeforehisowndeath
andResurrection,JesusisinterpretingthehistoryofIsraelasfoundationalforthe
promiseofeternallifeforus.Thegroundingforthishopeforeternallifeisa
structureofcreationandhistorythatis,atitsbase,dialogicalandconversational.
The“we”ofhumanitythatpossessesthepotentialforeternallifedoessobasedon
thefactofourveryexistencebeingwithinGodandinrelationtoGod.Thispotential
forhumanitythatJesuspointstoinhisownteachingministryisfulfilledfor
humanity,isopeneduptoall,however,notuntilhisowndeathandResurrection.
ForRatzinger,theChristianisdrawnintoaforetasteofeschatological
fulfillmentandtheinnerdynamicofnewcreationinsofarasheorsheparticipatesin
thepaschalmysteryofChrist.Participationintheliturgyistheentrancepar
excellenceofthemembersoftheChurchintothe“’I’ofChrist”.ForRatzinger,to
“enterintothe‘I’ofChrist”isfundamentallytoenterthedialogicalrelationship
betweendivinityandhumanity.Itistoenterintothestoryofthatunfolding
relationshipasithasoccurredthroughoutthenarrativeofsalvationhistorythatis
fulfilledinthedeathandResurrectionofJesus.Heemphasizesthisdialogical
479Ibid.
233
dynamicthatunfoldsthoughsalvationhistorywhenhediscussestheNew
TestamentunderstandingofthelinkbetweentheResurrectionofChristandthe
possibilityofeternallifeforallofhumanity.Inonesuchexplanationofthe
ResurrectioninhissecondvolumeofJesusofNazareth,Benedicttakesasastarting
pointSt.Paul’sformulaoftheconfessionoffaithgivenin1CorinthiansinwhichPaul
asserts,“Christdiedforoursinsinaccordancewiththescriptures”(15:3).Hetakes
thosetwoelementsofinterpretation‐thatthedeathwas“forus”andthatitwas“in
accordancewiththescriptures,”tobeessentialtotheChristianmeaningofJesus’
deathandresurrection.480
InexaminingBenedict’sanalysisofthesetwopartsofthePaul’sconfessionof
faith,wecandetectthedialogicalprincipleatworkagaininbothinstances.For
Benedict,Iwouldargue,Paul’sproclamationisfundamentallyadialogicalreality.
First,behindtheResurrectionisadivineactionforhumanity.Jesus’deathonthe
crossisGod’smostperfectwordoflovetohumanityandthepowerofthatloveis
notrecognizedbyhumanityuntiltheResurrectionthatfollowsthedeath.Secondly,
theResurrectionisthefulfillmentofthesagaofsalvationhistorythatismarred
earlyonbythedisobedienceofhumanityinthefallofAdam.Theruptureofthe
relationshipbetweenGodandhumanityisattemptedtobecorrectedthroughthe
givingofthelawandtheprophetsuntilfinally,inJesus,aNewAdamemergeswhois
ahumanbeingabletobeonceagainobedienttoandlivinginunionwithGod,as
humanityiscreatedtobe.TheResurrectionisthefruitofthisobedienceand
480Benedict,JesusofNazareth.PartTwo,HolyWeek:FromtheEntranceintoJerusalemtotheResurrection,251.
234
therebyrepresentsthemomentofanewcreationthatisalsotheeschatological
fulfillmentofallofsalvationhistory.Benedictexplains,“It[theResurrectionof
Jesus]belongsinthecontextofGod’songoingrelationshipwithhispeople,from
whichitreceivesitsinnerlogicanditsmeaning.Itisaneventinwhichthewordsof
Scripturearefulfilled;itbearswithinitselfLogos,orlogic;itproceedsfromthe
wordandreturnstotheword;itsurroundsthewordandfulfillsit.”481Atthevery
heartofthemeaningofChrist’sfreegiftofself‐sacrificingloveonthecross,then,is
Logos‐aneventofcommunication.Andifitiscommunication,thenitisa
communicationbetweentwoparties‐Godandhumanity.Itisforthisreason,that
thetwoaspectsofPaul’sconfession‐boththatthedeathandResurrectionthatmark
thepinnacleoftherelationshipbetweenGodandmanthatissalvationhistorywas
“inaccordancewiththescriptures;”andthatthedeathandResurrectionwas“for
oursins”‐indicatesthecommunicativeordialogicalnatureofthepaschalmystery.
Jesus’deathandresurrectionformaneventofcommunicationatthecenterof
whichisawordfromGodandforhumanity.Heexplains,“Becausehisdeathhasto
dowiththewordofGod,ithastodowithus,itisadying‘for.’”482Iftheoriginalsin
ofrefusingtolistentoGod’swordendedintheisolationofdeathforhumanity,itis
inthe“yes”ofGodtohumanityandhumanitybacktoGod,inJesus’death,that
eternallifeismadepossibleforhumanity.Onlyinthiseventoftheperfectdialogue
betweenGodandhumanityisthedisruptionofthatdialogue(whichdeathsignifies)
overcome.
481Ibid.,252.482Ibid.,252‐3.
235
Resurrectionasrecreationinhistory
ForRatzinger,itisessentialtoemphasizethattheResurrectionofJesusthat
isaperfectionofthehuman/divinedialogue,happensinhistoryandisnotmerely
anabstractideaproposedtotheintellect.Furthermore,indescribinghowessential
itisthatitwasnotmerelyoneisolatedeventofapersonwhodiedandthencame
backtolife,Benedictemphasizestheradicaluniquenessofthiseventandits
meaningforthewholeofhumanhistory.Hewrites,“Evenifmanbyhisnatureis
createdforimmortality,itisonlynowthattheplaceexistsinwhichhisimmortal
soulcanfindits‘space’,its‘bodiliness’,inwhichimmortalitytakesonitsmeaningas
communionwithGodandwiththewholeofreconciledmankind.”483Itishereinthe
contextofthedeathandResurrectionofJesusthenthattheChristianunderstanding
ofbothcreationandeschatologybegintoconverge.Whatwasbeguninthemoment
ofcreationthatcameaboutthroughtheeffectivenessoftheWordofGodbeing
utterednowcomestofulfillment.IntheResurrectionofJesus,Benedictnotes,there
isnotonlyaninterestinganddramaticmomentinhistory,butitisamomentofa
kindof“evolutionaryleap”intheveryheartofbeingthattakesplace.Thereisan
“ontologicalleap”thatoccasions“openingupadimensionthataffectsusall,creating
forallofusanewspaceoflife,anewspaceofbeinginunionwithGod.”484
ResurrectionofthedeadintheChristianvision,then,isnotsimplyabout
individualslivingafterdeathonaspiritualplane.Itisalsobodily.Assuch,itpoints
483Ibid.,274.484Ibid.
236
totheeschatologicalfulfillmentofwhatthehumanpersonwascreatedfor“inthe
beginning.”ForRatzinger,resurrectionisaboutcommunionwithbothGodandthe
restofcreatedhumanity.Itishasbothhumananddivineconsequences.Itisboth
individualandcommunal.Itisbotheternalaswellashistorical.Theresurrected
selfentersintoeternityonlybecauseeternityhasenteredintotemporality.
Ratzinger’srelianceontheLogosbothinhistheologyofcreationaswellashis
eschatologymakesitpossibletoholdthesedimensionstogethersincetheLogosis
bothspokenfrometernityandalwaysremainsineternity,whilealsospokeninand
communicatedincreation,inhistory.SincetheLogosisspokeninhistory,itenters
intoarealmofthecontingent,becauseitdependsonthereceptivityoffree
humanitytowhatisspoken.Thedirectiontheresponsetakesonthepartof
humanityremainsanopenquestion.Whenitcomestotheeschatologicalquestion
ofthefinaljudgment,then,thefragilityofthenatureofthisdialoguebetweenGod
andhumanitycomesintoclarity.Havingestablishedthe“fact”oftheresurrection,
then,Ratzingeralsotakesupthequestionofhowthatfactisrespondedtoby
humanitywhoremainsfreetoenterintothedialogueortorefuseit.Itistothis
questionthatwenowturn.
VI.HumanFreedomandDivineLoveintheFinalJudgment
IfResurrectionandeternallifeforthehumanpersonareaboutthe
fulfillmentofthedialoguewithGodofferedinChristJesus,andifitistruethatGod
neverquitsspeakingHisEternalWordtousoutoflove,isitreallypossibleforthe
humanpersontodefinitivelyandonceandforallrefusethisdialogue?Couldfinal
judgmentresultindamnation,inHell?Oristherealwaysachanceofre‐opening
237
thisdialogue?ThetraditionaldoctrineofHellanddamnation,areofcoursevery
muchcalledintoquestioninthemoderneraandRatzingerrecallsthechallenge
implicitinkeepingthetraditionaldoctrinewhilefindingawaytoarticulateitin
morecontemporaryandpersonalistterms.Herecallsthefamoustheological
proposalofOrigeninthethirdcenturythatintheend,allwouldbesaved.Ratzinger
notesthatthispresumptionarisesoutofthePlatonictheoryheoperatedoutofthat
evilhasnorealsubstanceandGod’srealityandbeingwouldultimatelyovercomeall
distortionsofthisreality.485ComingpartiallytoOrigen’sdefense,heremindsthe
readerthatOrigenproposedthisasahypothesis.Butultimately,theconclusion
Origenmadewasonedeterminedprimarilybythemetaphysicalsystemhehad
workedoutandwhichprovidedaframeworkforunderstandingaspectsofthe
Christianfaith.Inthissense,thescripturalwitnesspertainingtotherealityofhell
wasneglectedbyOrigen.AndsoRatzingerusesthisscripturalwitnessashis
startingpoint.ThereisnodoubtthatboththeOldandNewTestamenttestifytothe
realityofhell.Butwhatisthenatureofit?Proceedingfromanessentiallybiblical
basis,hearguesthathumanfreedomhasaprivilegedplaceintheschemaandthat
thisfreedomisalwaysoperative.Andsowhiledivineloveisalwaysofferedtothe
freehumanbeing,itisnotthrustuponhim.Whilethisfreedomisrespected,“what
canbegiventothecreature,however,islove…andyetthefreedomtoresistthe
creationofthatassent[todivinelove],thefreedomnottoacceptitasone’sown,
thisfreedomremains.”486Thehumanpersonalwaysremainsfreetoreceivethis
485Ratzinger,Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife,215.486Ibid.,216.
238
love,tohearthiswordoflovespokenfromGodandallowittotransformhimorelse
torejectit.Hell,then,inRatzinger’sschemarevealsagreatdealaboutthefragile
dynamicthatcharacterizesrelationship‐theofferoflove,awordspokenof
invitationtoloveandtheuncertaintyoftheresponse.Whetheritisrejectedor
embraceddependsonthesecondparty.TheWordoflovespokenfromthedivine
“I”canbereceivedorrejectedbythehuman“Thou.”Itisafragileprocessbecauseit
isdialogicalinnature.Theprospectofhell,orheavenforthatmatter,inRatzinger’s
view,isnotamatteroftheunilateralactiontakenbytheall‐powerfuljuridical
authorityofGodthateitherdispensessalvationordamnationasheseesfit,but
ratherJudgmenttakesonthetenuouscharacterofarelationship,theoutcomeof
whichremainstobeseen.Forthisreason,hellremainsverymucharealityfora
freehumanity.Andyet,facingtherealityofhellcanbedoneinhope.Thishope,he
writes,“doesnotemergefromtheneutrallogicofasystem…insteaditderivesfrom
thesurrenderofallclaimstoinnocenceandtoreality’sperduringness,asurrender
whichtakesplacebytheCrossoftheRedeemer.Suchhope,however,cannotbea
self‐willedassertion.ItmustplaceitspetitionintothehandsofitsLordandleaveit
there.”487Thisisthehopethatcan“takeon”Hellnotasanendeavoroftheisolated
individual,butonlyastheonewhoisfundamentallyindialoguewiththeWord
Himselfwhoisspokenaslove,inthefaceofdeath,ontheCross.
HellandHeaven
ForRatzinger,intheabsenceoftheultimatehopethatisbasedindialogue
withtheLord,hellbecomesaveryrealpossibility;indeeditbecomesalikely
487Ibid.,218.
239
outcome.BenedictexplainsneartheendofSpeSalvi,“Therecanbepeoplewho
havetotallydestroyedtheirdesirefortruthandreadinesstolove,peopleforwhom
everythinghasbecomealie,peoplewhohavelivedforhatredandhavesuppressed
alllovewithinthemselves.Thisisaterrifyingthought,butalarmingprofilesofthis
typecanbeseenincertainfiguresofourownhistory.Insuchpeopleallwouldbe
beyondremedyandthedestructionofgoodwouldbeirrevocable:thisiswhatwe
meanbythewordHell.”488Ontheotherhand,hesays,therearepeoplewhoareso
radicallyopentoGodandtotheirneighbors,thatupontheirdeath,theymove
directlyintothatfullnessofcommunionwithGodandalltheangelsandsaintsin
heaven.WhilethatradicalopennesstorelationshipwithGodandothersispossible
justasisaradicallycloseddispositiontothatrelationship,realistically,hesays,
neitherofthesesituationsisverycommoninthehumancondition.Mostwhoreach
thepointofhistoricaldeathhaveatleastadegreeofopennesstotheeternalfullness
ofthatrelationshipwithGodandtherestofsanctifiedhumanity,butthereisalsoa
needforapurificationofheartbeforethatcommunioncantakeplace.Itisforthis
reasonthatapurgationisrequired.
Benedictnotestheopinionof“somerecenttheologians”489whenheexplains
thenotionthat“thefirewhichbothburnsandsavesisChristhimself,theJudgeand
Saviour.Theencounterwithhimisthedecisiveactofjudgement.Beforehisgazeall
falsehoodmeltsaway.Thisencounterwithhim,asitburnsus,transformsandfrees
us,allowingustobecometrulyourselves.Allthatwebuildduringourlivescan
488Benedict,SpeSalvi,#45.489Ibid.,#47.
240
provetobemerestraw,purebluster,anditcollapses.Yetinthepainofthis
encounter,whentheimpurityandsicknessofourlivesbecomeevidenttous,there
liessalvation.Hisgaze,thetouchofhishearthealsusthroughanundeniablypainful
transformation‘asthroughfire’.”490ItisinthisencounterwithChristwhoseidentity
isbothSaviorandJudgethattheworkofGod’sjusticeaswellasHismercyis
expressed.Thisworkofbothjusticeandmercyunfoldsasa“painful
transformation”thatoccursinthecourseoftheencounterwithChrist.Benedict
situatesthetransformationinthecontextofthetruenatureofhopethatrelieson
bothjusticeandmercy,or“grace”,ashecallsit:“ThejudgementofGodishope,both
becauseitisjusticeandbecauseitisgrace.Ifitweremerelygrace,makingall
earthlythingsceasetomatter,Godwouldstilloweusananswertothequestion
aboutjustice—thecrucialquestionthatweaskofhistoryandofGod.Ifitwere
merelyjustice,intheenditcouldbringonlyfeartousall.”491Itisworthnotinghere
thatthetwo‐foldnatureofdivinejudgmentthatrevealsitselffirstasjusticeand
thenasmercyisconsistentwiththeentiremodeofRatzinger’stheologicalreflection
thatisnarrativeandunfoldingincharacter.Becausethefinaljudgmentisbasedon
theunfoldingoftherelationshipbetweenGodandhumanityasitplaysoutinthe
contextofsalvationhistory,justiceisaccomplishedbutitalsogiveswaytothe
fulfillmentofjusticethatisGod’smercy.Neitherjusticenormercyisamereconcept
tobegrasped.Onecannotbeunderstoodwithouttheotherandneithercanbe
understoodiftheyarenotattendedtothroughoutthecourseoftheunfolding
490Ibid.491Ibid.
241
narrativeofsalvationhistory.Theflexibilityofthismodeofdoingtheologytowhich
JosephRatzingerhasbecomeaccustomedinthecourseofhiscareer,isableto
handletheapparentcontradictionsthatwouldariseifthistheologicalreflection
werebeingdoneinmorepropositionaltermsthatrequiredpreciseandself‐
containeddefinitionsofdivinejusticeanddivinemercyasmereideasthatcouldbe
analyzeda‐historically.Rather,hissalvation‐historicalapproachtothesequestions
allowsforthedynamicofunderstandingaparticulartheologicalproblemalwaysin
thecontextoftherelationshipbetweenGodandhumanitythatisalwaysunfolding.
AnotherdimensionofthisunfoldingrelationshipbetweenGodandhumanity
asitculminatesinfinaljudgment,isthattherelationshipisalwaysacommunalone
ofthewholeofhumanityrelatingtoGodandwithoneanother.Itisforthisreason,
heexplains,thatevenafterdeath,thebondsofloveamongthefaithfulstillexistand
theyremainanessentialdimensionofhowagivenpersonundergoingdivine
judgmententersintothatencounterwiththeLord.Thisisdoneneverinisolation,
butalwaysinthecontextofthewebofhumanrelationsthatthepersonenjoyed
whilealiveonearth.Whileeachindividualpersondoesundergoaparticular
judgment,theydoso,potentiallywiththesupportofotheraspectsofloveintheir
lives.Benedictexplains,“Thesoulsofthedepartedcan,however,receive‘solace
andrefreshment’throughtheEucharist,prayerandalmsgiving.Thebeliefthatlove
canreachintotheafterlife,thatreciprocalgivingandreceivingispossible,inwhich
ouraffectionforoneanothercontinuesbeyondthelimitsofdeath—thishasbeena
fundamentalconvictionofChristianitythroughouttheagesanditremainsasource
ofcomforttoday.Whowouldnotfeeltheneedtoconveytotheirdepartedloved
242
onesasignofkindness,agestureofgratitudeorevenarequestforpardon?”492
Certainly,onaphenomenologicallevel,thatneedamongthebereavedtowantto
speakthatwordoflovetoandonbehalfoftheirbeloveddepartedexists,but
theologicallyaquestionremains:howcanthis“word”spokenbyotherpeople
becomeawordthatiseffectiveintheunfoldingofthebeloved’sreceptionofdivine
justiceandmercy?Benedicttakesupthisproblemwhenheasks,
Nowafurtherquestionarises:if‘Purgatory’issimplypurificationthroughfireintheencounterwiththeLord,JudgeandSaviour,howcanathirdpersonintervene,evenifheorsheisparticularlyclosetotheother?Whenweasksuchaquestion,weshouldrecallthatnomanisanisland,entireofitself.Ourlivesareinvolvedwithoneanother,throughinnumerableinteractionstheyarelinkedtogether.Noonelivesalone.Noonesinsalone.Nooneissavedalone.Thelivesofotherscontinuallyspilloverintomine:inwhatIthink,say,doandachieve.Andconversely,mylifespillsoverintothatofothers:forbetterandforworse.Somyprayerforanotherisnotsomethingextraneoustothatperson,somethingexternal,notevenafterdeath.IntheinterconnectednessofBeing,mygratitudetotheother—myprayerforhim—canplayasmallpartinhispurification.AndforthatthereisnoneedtoconvertearthlytimeintoGod'stime:inthecommunionofsoulssimpleterrestrialtimeissuperseded.Itisnevertoolatetotouchtheheartofanother,norisiteverinvain.493
Thistouchingoftheheartofanother,evenacrossthechasmofdeaththatis
markedbythegapbetweenhistoryandeternity,canbedoneinlove,most
perfectlywhenthatloveisgroundedintheheartofChristandinthecontext
ofecclesialprayerwhereintheChurchpraysfromwithin“theIofChrist.”
492Ibid.,#48.493Ibid.
243
Conclusion:EternalDialogue
InthismeditationonthelastthingsinSpeSalvi,then,weseea
profoundinterconnectednessofthevariousaspectsofRatzinger’stheology.
Atheologicalanthropologyisofferedthatinsistsuponatrueidentityfor
humanitythatisconstitutedofsolidarityamongpeopleandestablishedata
spirituallevel,alevelthatisfulfilledinprayerandloveforoneanother.This
prayerismadepossibleandfulfilledinthepersonofChrist.Andthe
solidarityintowhichweareabletoenter,throughChrist,isonethat
stretchesacrosstheorderofcreationandhistoryintoeternity.For
Ratzinger,thereisnoproperunderstandingofeschatologicalrealities
withoutseeingthemthroughthelensoftheidentityandworkaccomplished
byChristwhomheseesastheperfectionofthedialoguebetweenGodand
humanity.Werecallherefromthesecondchapterofthisthesisthat
Ratzingerseesrevelation“basicallyasdialogue”.AndifChrististhefullness
oftherevelationofGodthen,asIarguedinthethirdchapter,Christisthe
dialogueitself‐boththespeakingofGodtomanandman’sresponsebackto
God.Ratzinger’sChristology,drawingfromhisstudyofBonaventure,has
ChristatthecenterofhistoryandasthefulfillmentoftheplanofGodfor
humanity’ssalvation,preciselyasWord.Christ,theWordmadefleshin
history,isalsotheWordwhocontinuestospeakfrometernitycallingthe
wholeofhistoryintothelifeoftheFather.ThisLogo‐centricunderstanding
ofChristology‐thatisonlyunderstoodwithinthe“IofChrist”actualizedfor
humanityinthelifeoftheChurch‐furtherelucidatesmattersastheypertain
244
toeschatology.ItisexactlybecauseoftheframeworkoftheLogosinthis
regard,becauseofthecommunicativeanddialogicalwayofunderstanding
Christandsalvationhistory,thatcertaintensionsimplicitineschatologycan
remaincreativeandenlighteningeventhoughtheyalwaysescapetheprecise
graspofhumanunderstanding.Thecommunicative,dialogicalframeworkof
Ratzinger’stheologyallowsforthistension.ForRatzinger,theeschatonis
nothingotherthanthefulfillmentineternityofthenarrativeofsalvation
historythathasbeenshapedthroughoutbythedialoguebetweenGodand
humanity.
245
Epilogue
Wecome,then,totheendofthisexplorationofthethoughtofJoseph
Ratzinger.Wehaveconcludedwithanexaminationofthelastthings.Butinthis
examinationweseestillatwork,thefirstthings.Therehasbeenaconstant
dynamicatworkthroughouthisthoughtanditisthisdynamicthat,inmy
estimation,allowsthewholeofhisworktocohere.Thedynamichasbeenoneof
dialoguebothwithinGod,inalleternity,butalsobetweenGodandhumanityin
history.Thedialoguethatisattheveryheartofrealityisdialoguethathasbridged
thechasmbetweeneternityandhistory.Thereisasimplicityatthecoreof
Ratzinger’sarticulationoftheChristianmystery.Godspeaks.Humanitylistens…or
not.TothedegreethathumanitydoeslistentotheWordspokenbyGod,thenthere
isthepossibilityofrespondingtotheWord,therebyfulfillingwhatitmeanstobe
trulyhuman.Inthisspeakingandlistening,arelationshipisestablished,a
transformationoccurs,astoryistold.Butthissimplicitycanbedeceiving.Itisnota
simplicityofaone‐dimensionalexpositionofChristianity.Quitethecontrary.For
Ratzinger,asIhaveattemptedtodemonstrate,thereisalwaysatensionatworkin
thisrealityoftheChristianvision.PreciselybecauseGodisnotonlylogicalbut
dialogical‐sotooisallofreality,notonlylogical,butdialogical.
Thereisacertainfragilityinadialogue.Thereismysteryemergingasthe
dialogueunfolds.Itcannotsimplybegraspedandthenwalkedawayfrom.Itmust
belivedfromwithinandtoremainintouchwithreality,itisnecessarytoremain
withinthisdialogue‐withourfellowhumanbeings,withthetraditionthathas
246
precededus,withthoseinheavenwhohavegonebeforeus,withthestoryof
Scripturethathasbeentoldtous,withtheexperienceoftheliturgythatisthe
perfectionofthatdialogueindailylife.Throughoutitall,inallthewaysthatwe
remain“within”thedialogueofhumanexistence,wegetourbearingsastohowthis
dialoguereallyworksbylookingtothefigureofJesusChrist‐theonewhoisthe
dialogueitself,inoneperson‐theonewhoisboththeEternalWordofGodspoken
tohumanityandhumanity’sperfectresponsebacktoGod.
Notlongago,asIwasnearingtheendoftheeditingprocessforthis
dissertation,IhadabriefconversationwithastudentataJesuituniversity.Wehad
justconcludedcelebratinga10pmmassonaTuesdaynight.Ihadnotseenhimat
thatmassbefore.Hewasinhissenioryearandhewasatheologymajor.Heasked
ifwecouldspeakforamomentandIagreed.Heaskedwhatheoughttodosincehe
hadrecentlynoticedthatthemorehegotintohistheologicalstudies,thelesshe
wasdrawntoprayer.Hisspirituallifewasdryingupashewasnearingthe
completionofhistheologydegree.Whenhewasafreshman,hesaid,heprayed
often,wentonretreats,evenseriouslyconsideredbecomingaJesuitoneday.Itwas
becauseofthisdevotionthathehaddecidedtostudytheologyinthefirstplace.And
now,thatdevotionseemedtohavefaded.Therewasasadnessandalonginginhis
voice.Ashedescribedhispredicament,animmediaterushcameovermeofallthat
Ihadbeenstudyingandwritingaboutinthelastyearandahalfbasedonthe
preachingandtheologyofJosephRatzinger.ThisiswhyBenedicthasdonewhathe
hasdone,itstruckme.Thisiswhyhehasundertakentheologyinsuchamanner‐
forpeoplelikethisyoungmanbeforeme.ForRatzinger,theologyisanattemptto
247
givewordstowhattheWordhasspokeninhistoryandtowhatordinarypeople
haveexperiencedofthatWordintheirlives.Theologyismeanttodescribeand
deepenthesenseofwhat,exactly,thisencounteriscomprised.Andwhentheology
isdonewell,itoughttoleadonedirectlybackintothatencounterandnotaway
fromitsothatChristianitycanbeexaminedfromasafe,“objective”distance.Tomy
mind,JosephRatzinger,nowPopeBenedictXVI,doestheologywell.Itismyhope
thathavingreflecteduponhisthought,Imightdoalittlebetteratitmyself.
248
Bibliography
Afanasʹev,N.LaPrimautéDePierreDansl'EgliseOrthodoxe[Par]N.Afanassieff[Et
Al.].Neuchâtel,Delachaux&Niestlé,1960.Allen,JohnL.CardinalRatzinger:TheVatican'sEnforceroftheFaith.NewYork:
Continuum,2000.
Augustine,Confessions.TranslatedbyHenryChadwick.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.
________.Onorder.TranslatedandintroducedbySilvanoBorruso.SouthBend,IN:St. Augustine’sPress,2007.
Balthasar,HansUrsvon.TheTheologyofKarlBarth:ExpositionandInterpretation.TranslatedbyEdwardT.Oakes.SanFrancisco:CommunioBooks,IgnatiusPress,1992.
________.TheWordmadeFlesh.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1989.Barron,RobertE.ThePriorityofChrist:TowardaPostliberalCatholicism.Grand
Rapids,MI:BrazosPress,2007.BenedictXVI,Pope.TheEssentialPopeBenedictXVI:HisCentralWritingsand
Speeches.EditedbyJohnF.Thornton,andSusanB.Varenne.NewYork:Harper,2007.
________.GesammelteSchriften.EditedbyGerhardLudwigMüller,andBenediktXVI
InstitutPapst.FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder,2008.________.TheGodofJesusChrist:MeditationsontheTriuneGod.SanFrancisco:
IgnatiusPress,2008.________.ImagesofHope:MeditationsonMajorFeasts.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,
2006.________.JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantotheTransfiguration.New
York:Doubleday,2007.________.JesusofNazareth.PartTwo,HolyWeek:FromtheEntranceintoJerusalemto
theResurrection.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2011.
________.LightoftheWorld:ThePope,theChurch,andtheSignsoftheTimes:AconversationwithPeterSeewald.TranslatedbyMichaelJ.MillerandAdrianJ.Walker.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2010.
249
________.OntheWaytoJesusChrist.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005.________.WhatitMeanstobeaChristian:ThreeSermons.SanFrancisco:Ignatius
Press,2006.________.TheYesofJesusChrist:ExercisesinFaith,HopeandLove.NewYork:
Crossroad,2005.Beozzo,JoséOscarandGiuseppeRuggieri,TheEcumenicalConstitutionofChurches.
London:SCMPress,2001.Bockmuehl,MarkusandAlanJ.Torrance,editors.Scripture'sDoctrineandTheology's
Bible:HowtheNewTestamentShapesChristianDogmatics.GrandRapids,MI:BakerAcademic,2008.
Bonaventure,CollationesinHexaëmeron,et,Bonaventurianaquaedamselectaad fidem.EditedbyFerdinandusDelorme.Florentiae:CollegiiS. Bonaventurae,1934.
Bosely,RichardandTweedale,Martin.BasicIssuesinMedievalPhilosophy.Petersborough,Ontario:BroadviewPress,1997.
Buber,Martin.IandThou.TranslatedbyWalterArnoldKaufmann.NewYork:Scribner,1970.
________.BetweenManandMan.TranslatedbyRonaldGregorSmithNewYork:
Macmillan,1965.Bultmann,Rudolf.NewTestamentandMythologyandOtherBasicWritings.Editedby
SchubertMilesOgden.Philadelphia:FortressPress,1989.Carey,PatrickW.AveryCardinalDulles,SJ:AModelTheologian,19182008.New
York:PaulistPress,2010.Casel,Odo.TheMysteryofChristianWorship,andOtherWritings.Translatedby
BurkhardNeunheuser.Westminster,MD:NewmanPress,1962.CatholicChurch.Pope(2005‐:BenedictXVI).CharityinTruth:CaritasinVeritate:
EncyclicalLetteroftheSupremePontiffBenedictXVItotheBishops,PriestsandDeacons,MenandWomenReligious,theLayFaithful,andallPeopleofGoodWillonIntegralHumanDevelopmentinCharityandTruth.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2009.
250
________.EnchiridionSymbolorum:DefinitionumEtDeclarationumDeRebusFideiEtMorum.EditedbyHeinrichDenzingerandClemensBannwart.FriburgiBrisgoviae:HerderandCo,1908.
________.GeneralInstructionontheLiturgyoftheHours.Washington,D.C.:OfficeofPublishingServices,U.S.CatholicConference,1983.
________.Pope(2005‐:BenedictXVI).GodisLove:DeusCaritasEst:EncyclicalLetterof theSupremePontiffBenedictXVItotheBishops,PriestsandDeacons,Menand WomenReligious,andalltheLayFaithful,onChristianLove.Washington, DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2006.
________.Pope(2005‐:BenedictXVI).OnChristianHope:SpeSalvi,EncyclicalLetteroftheSupremePontiffBenedictXVItotheBishops,PriestsandDeacons,MenandWomenReligious,theLayFaithful,andallPeopleofGoodWillonChristianHope.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops,2007.
________.Pope(1878‐1903:LeoXIII).ImmortaleDei.NewYork:AmericaPress,1936.________.Pope(1967‐1978:PaulVI).OntheDevelopmentofPeoples:Populorum
Progressio,EncyclicalLetterofHisHolinessPopePaulVI.NewYork,PaulistPress,1967.
________.ProclaimingtheTruthofJesusChrist:PapersfromtheVallombrosaMeeting.
Washington,D.C.:UnitedStatesCatholicConference,2000.________.Pope(2005‐:BenedictXVI)VerbumDomini:TheWordofGodintheLifeandMissionoftheChurch:PostSynodalApostolicExhortationoftheHolyFatherPopeBenedictXVItothebishops,clergy,consecratedpersonsandthelayfaithfulontheWordofGodinthelifeandmissionoftheChurch.Frederick,MD:WordAmongUs,2010.
________.Pope(1978‐2005:JohnPaulII).OntheRelationshipBetweenFaithandReason:FidesetRatio,EncyclicalletteroftheSupremePontiffJohnPaulIItothebishopsoftheCatholicChurch.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesCatholicConference,1998.
Chia,Edmund.TowardsaTheologyofDialogue:Schillebeeckx'sMethodasBridgebetweenVatican'sDominusIesusandAsia'sFABCTheology:AScientificEssayinTheology.Bangkok,Thailand:EdmundChia,2003.
Collins,Christopher,SJ,“ChristologyandPropheticWitnessinCaritasinVeritate”in
PromotioJustitiae,No.104,Rome,2010.Collins,Michael.PopeBenedictXVI:SuccessortoPeter.Dublin:ColumbaPress,2005.
251
CongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith.DeclarationDominusIesus:OntheUnicityandSalvificUniversalityofJesusChristandtheChurch.VaticanCity:LibreriaEditriceVaticana,2000.
________.LetterontheCollaborationofMenandWomenintheChurchandinthe
World,2004.Corkery,James.JosephRatzinger'sTheologicalIdeas:WiseCautionsandLegitimate
Hopes.NewYork:PaulistPress,2009.
Dawson,Christopher.ReligionandtheRiseofWesternCulture.NewYork:Sheed&Ward,1950.
Deines,Roland.“Canthe'Real'JesusbeIdentifiedwiththeHistoricalJesus?A
ReviewofthePope'sChallengetoBiblicalScholarshipandtheVariousReactionsitProvoked”inDidaskalia39.1(2009).
Dulles,AveryCardinal.“FromRatzingertoBenedict”FirstThings160(Fall2006).________.ModelsofRevelation.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1992.Dupuis,JacquesandJosefNeusner,eds.TheChristianFaithintheDoctrinal
DocumentsoftheCatholicChurch.NewYork:AlbaHouse,1996.Forest,Aimé,FernandvanSteenberghen,andMauricedeGandillac.LeMouvement
DoctrinalDuXIeAuXIVeSiècle.MouvementDoctrinalDuOnzièmeAuQuatorzièmeSiècle.Paris:Bloud&Gay,1951.
Friedman,MauriceS.MartinBuber:TheLifeofDialogue.Chicago,IL:Universityof
ChicagoPress,1956.GaálGyulai,Emeryde.TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI:TheChristocentricShift.
NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2010.Gadamer,HansGeorg.TruthandMethod.NewYork:Continuum,1975.Geiselmann,JosefRupert.DieHeiligeSchriftUndDieTradition:ZuDenNeueren
KontroversenÜberDasVerhältnisDerHeiligenSchrift;ZuDenNichtgeschriebenenTraditionen.Freiburg:Herder,1962.
Gilson,Etienne.ThePhilosophyofSt.Bonaventure.NewYork:St.AnthonyGuild
Press,1965.Gordo,JesúsMartinez.TheChristologyofJ.RatzingerBenedictXVIinLightofhis
theologicalbiography.Barcelona:CristianismeiJusticiaBooklets.No.132(February2009).
252
Granados,Jose,CarlosGranados,andLuisSánchezNavarro.OpeningUpthe
Scriptures:JosephRatzingerandtheFoundationsofBiblicalInterpretation.GrandRapids,MI:WilliamB.EerdmansPub.Co,2008.
Guardini,Romano.TheDeathofSocrates:AnInterpretationofthePlatonicDialogues: Euthyphro,Apology,CritoandPhaedo.TranslatedbyBasilWrighton. Cleveland,WorldPub.Co.,1962.
________.TheSpiritoftheLiturgy.London:Sheed&Ward,1930.Hahn,Scott.CovenantandCommunion:TheBiblicalTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI.
GrandRapids,MI:BrazosPress,2009.Hamer,Jérôme.L’egliseestunecommunion.Paris:LesÉditionsduCerf,1962.Häring,Hermann,JanetMartinSoskice,andFelixWilfred,LearningfromOther
Faiths.London:SCMPress,2003.Harnack,Adolfvon.HistoryofDogma.Boston:RobertsBrothers,1895._________.OutlinesoftheHistoryofDogma.Boston:BeaconPress,1957.________.WhatisChristianity?LecturesDeliveredintheUniversityofBerlinduringthe
WinterTerm18991900.NewYork:G.P.Putnam'sSons,1903.Haught,JohnF.MysteryandPromise:ATheologyofRevelation.Collegeville,MN:
LiturgicalPress,1993.Heim,MaximilianHeinrich.JosephRatzinger:LifeintheChurchandLivingTheology:
FundamentalsofEcclesiologywithReferencetoLumenGentium.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2007.
Hertling,L.“CommunioundPrimat‐KircheundPapstuminderchristlichenAntike” inMiscellaneaHistoriaePontificiae.Rome,1943.Johnson,Luke."JesusofNazareth:FromtheBaptismintheJordantothe
Transfiguration."ModernTheology24,No.2(2008):318‐320.JustinMartyr.TheFirstandSecondApologies(AncientChristianWriters).Translated
byLeslieW.Barnard.Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,1997.Käsemann,Ernst.“WarJesusLiberal?”inDerRufderFreiheit.Tübingen:Mohr,1968.Kerr,Fergus.TwentiethCenturyCatholicTheologians:FromNeoscholasticismto
NuptialMysticism.Malden,MA:BlackwellPub,2007.
253
Lamb,MatthewL.andMatthewLevering.VaticanII:RenewalwithinTradition.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.
Lubac,Henride.HenrideLubac,GlaubenausderLiebe:Catholicisme.Translatedby
HansUrsvonBalthasar.(Einsiedeln:JohannesVerlag,1970).________.Surnaturel:ÉtudesHistoriques.Paris:Aubier,1946.Lüdemann,Gerd.EyesthatSeeNot:ThePopeLooksatJesus.SantaRosa,
CA:PolebridgePress,2008.Mannion,GerardandL.Boeve,Editors.TheRatzingerReader:MappingaTheological
Journey.London:T&TClark,2010.Marion,Jean‐Luc.GodwithoutBeing.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.Marmion,DeclanandMaryE.Hines,TheCambridgeCompaniontoKarlRahner.New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005.Martini,CarloM.,"ArdentTestimonyonJesus:OntheBookJesusofNazarethby
JosephRatzinger/BenedictXVI"BulletinDeiVerbum84/85,(2007).McBrien,RichardP.,HaroldW.Attridge,etal.TheHarperCollinsEncyclopediaof
Catholicism.NewYork:HarperCollins,1995.Metz,JohannesBaptistandJamesMatthewAshley.FaithinHistoryandSociety:
TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology.NewYork:CrossroadPub.Co,2007.
Miles,Jack."BetweenTheology&Exegesis."Commonweal(July132007),134.Mills,CliffordW.PopeBenedictXVI.NewYork:ChelseaHouse,2007.Morgan,MichaelL.andPeterEliGordon.TheCambridgeCompaniontoModern
JewishPhilosophy.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007.Neusner,Jacob."RenewingReligiousDisputationinQuestofTheologicalTruth:In
DialoguewithBenedictXVI'sJesusofNazareth."Communio34,no.2(2007):328‐334.
________.ARabbiTalkswithJesus:AnIntermillennial,InterfaithExchange.NewYork:
Doubleday,1993.Newman,JohnHenry.AnEssayinAidofaGrammarofAssent.NotreDame,IN:
UniversityofNotreDamePress,1979.
254
Nichols,Aidan.TheThoughtofPopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofJosephRatzinger.NewYork:Burns&Oates,2007.
O'Malley,JohnW.WhatHappenedatVaticanII.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2008.
Origen.OnFirstPrinciples;beingKoetschau'sTextoftheDePrincipiis.Translatedby
PaulKoetschau,andG.W.Butterworth.Gloucester,MA:P.Smith,1973.Peukert,Helmut.Science,Action,andFundamentalTheology:TowardaTheologyof
CommunicativeAction.TranslatedbyJamesBohman.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1984.
Pieper,Josef.TheEndofTime;aMeditationonthePhilosophyofHistory.NewYork:
PantheonBooks,1954.________."TheConceptofTradition."TheReviewofPolitics20.4,1958.Pope,StephenandCharlesHefling,Editors.SicEtNon:EncounteringDominusIesus.
Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,2002.Rahner,Karl.HearersoftheWord.NewYork:HerderandHerder,1969.________andJosephRatzinger.RevelationandTradition.London:Herder,1966.________.TheTrinity.NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970.Ratzinger,Joseph.BeholdthePiercedOne:AnApproachtoaSpiritualChristology.San
Francisco:IgnatiusPress,1986.
________.CalledtoCommunion:UnderstandingtheChurchToday.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1996.
________.“Communio:AProgram”Communio:InternationalCatholicReview19,no.3(1992):436‐49.
________."ConcerningtheNotionofPersoninTheology"Communio:InternationalCatholicReview.17,no.3(1990):439‐54.
________.CoWorkersoftheTruth:MeditationsforEveryDayoftheYear.Editedby
IreneGrassl.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1992.________.DaughterZion:MeditationsontheChurch'sMarianBelief.SanFrancisco:
IgnatiusPress,1983.________.DerGottDesGlaubensUndDerGottDerPhilosophen.München:Schnell&
Steiner70,1960.
255
________.DogmaandPreaching:ApplyingChristianDoctrinetoDailyLife.San
Francisco:IgnatiusPress,2011.
________.Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityof
AmericaPress,1988.
________andPeterSeewald.GodandtheWorld:BelievingandLivinginourTime:AConversationwithPeterSeewald.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2002.
________.GodisNearUs:TheEucharist,theHeartofLife.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,
2003.
________.God'sWord:Scripture,Tradition,Office.EditedbyPeterHünermann,andThomasSöding.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008.
________.IntheBeginning:ACatholicUnderstandingoftheStoryofCreationandthe
Fall.GrandRapids,MI:W.B.EerdmansPub.Co,1995.
________.JosephRatzingerinCommunio.EditedbyDavidSchindler.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2010.
________.IntroductiontoChristianity.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004.
________.“KirchealsTempeldesHeiligenGeistes”inVomWiederauffindenderMitte:Grudnorientierungen:TexteausvierJahrzenten.EditedbyS.O.HornandV.Pfnür.FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder,1997.
________.TheMeaningofChristianBrotherhood.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1993.________.Milestones:Memoirs,19271977.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998.
_______.TheNatureandMissionofTheology:EssaystoOrientTheologyinToday'sDebates.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1995.
________.OnConscience:TwoEssays.Philadelphia:NationalCatholicBioethicsCenter,
2007.________.PilgrimFellowshipofFaith:TheChurchasCommunion.EditedbyStephan
OttoHorn,VinzenzPfnür,andHenryTaylorSanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2005.________.PrinciplesofCatholicTheology:BuildingStonesforaFundamentalTheology.
SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1987.
________.SaltoftheEarth:ChristianityandtheCatholicChurchattheEndoftheMillenium.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1997.
256
_______.TheSpiritoftheLiturgy.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2000.________.TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII.NewYork:PaulistPress,1966.________.TheTheologyofHistoryinSt.Bonaventure.Chicago:FranciscanHeraldPress,
1989.
________.TruthandTolerance:ChristianBeliefandWorldReligions.Translatedby HenryTaylor.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2004.
________.“VicariousRepresentation”TranslatedbyJaredWicks,SJ,2011.Publicationpending.
________.VolkundHausGottesinAugustinsLehrevonderKirche.München,K. Zink,1954.
________.‘VorfragenzueinerTheologiederErlösung’inErlösungundEmanzipation.QuaestionesDisputate61.EditedbyLeoScheffczyk.Freiburg‐im‐Breisgau:Herder,1973.
Rausch,ThomasP.WhoisJesus?AnIntroductiontoChristology.Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress,2003.
________.PopeBenedictXVI:AnIntroductiontoHisTheologicalVision.NewYork:
PaulistPress,2009.Ricœur,Paul.HistoryandTruth.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1965.Rush,Ormond.StillInterpretingVaticanII:SomeHermeneuticalPrinciples.Mahwah,
N.J.:PaulistPress,2004.Rowland,Christopher.TheCambridgeCompaniontoLiberationTheology.NewYork:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1999.Rowland,Tracey.Ratzinger'sFaith:TheTheologyofPopeBenedictXVI.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress,2008.________.CultureandtheThomistTradition:AfterVaticanII.NewYork:Routledge,
2003.Rutsche,Markus.DieRelationalitätGottesBeiMartinBuberUndJosephRatzinger,
Norderstedt:GRINVerlag,2007.Saier,Oskar."Communio"inDerLehreDesZweitenVatikanischenKonzils:Eine
RechtsbegrifflicheUntersuchung.Ismaning:Hueber,1973.
257
Schall,JamesV.andBenedict.TheRegensburgLecture.SouthBend,IN:St.Augustine'sPress,2007.
Scharer,Matthias,andBerndJochenHilberath,editors.ThePracticeof
CommunicativeTheology:IntroductiontoaNewTheologicalCulture.NewYork:Crossroad,2008.
Schilpp,PaulArthur,MauriceS.Friedman,editors.ThePhilosophyofMartinBuber.
LaSalle,IL:OpenCourt,1967.Schleiermacher,Friedrich.HermeneuticsandCriticismandOtherWritings.Editedby
AndrewBowie.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.Schlier,Heinrich.OntheResurrectionofJesusChrist.TranslatedbyMichaelSullivan.
Rome:30Giorni,2008.________.GrundzügeEinerPaulinischenTheologie.Freiburg:Herder,1978.________.DerGeistUndDieKirche:ExegetischeAufsätzeUndVorträge4.Editedby
VeronikaKubina,andKarlLehmann.Frieburg:Herder,1980.________,GotteswortinMenschenmund:ZurBesinnung.EditedbyVeronikaKubinaand
KarlLehmann.Freiburg:Herder,1982.________.PrincipalitiesandPowersintheNewTestament.NewYork:Herderand
Herder,1961.________.TheRelevanceoftheNewTestament.NewYork:HerderandHerder,1968.________.ZurFrühgeshcichtederChristologie.Freiburg:Herder,1970.
GottliebSöhngen.DieEinheitinderTheologie:GesammelteAbhandlungen.München:
K.Zink,1952.Taylor,Charles.“TwoTheoriesofModernity”HastingsCenterReport,Mar‐Apr,
1995.Tillard,J.‐M‐R.Eglised'Églises:L'EcclésiologieDeCommunion.Paris:Cerf,1987.Tillich,PaulandRobertC.Kimball.TheologyofCulture.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press,1959.Tracy,David.“TheUneasyAllianceReconceived:CatholicTheologicalmethod,
ModernityandPostmodernity.”TheologicalStudies50.3(1989):548‐570.
258
Valente,GianniandPierlucaAzzardo,“Thatnewbeginningthatbloomedamongthe ruins:InterviewwithAlfredLäpple.”30DaysNo.1(2006):60.VaticanCouncil(2nd1962‐1965).ActasynodaliaSacrosanctiConciliiOecumenici VaticaniII.VaticanCity:TypispolyglottisVaticanis,1970.
_________.VaticanCouncilII:TheBasicSixteenDocuments:Constitutions,Decrees,Declarations.BasicSixteenDocuments.EditedbyFlannery,Austin.Northport,NY:DominicanPublications,1996
Vorgrimler,Herbert,ed.CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII,Vol15.New
York:HerderandHerder,1967.Webster,J.B.TheCambridgeCompaniontoKarlBarth.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress,2000.Wicks,W.J.andBenedict.Prof.RatzingeratVaticanII:AChapterintheLifeofPope
BenedictXVI.NewOrleans,LA:LoyolaUniversity,2007.________.“VaticanIIonRevelationfromBehindtheScenes.”TheologicalStudies71.3.
(September2010).
SpeechesandHomiliesofPopeBenedictXVI(inchronologicalorder)
Benedict,PopeXVI.“HomilyofHisEminenceJosephCardinalRatzinger,Deanofthe CollegeofCardinals.”VaticanBasilica,18April2005.
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily‐pro eligendo_pontifice_20050418_en.html
________.“MassontheSolemnityoftheAssumptionoftheBlessedVirginMary: HomilyofHisHoliness,BenedictXVI.”ParishChurch,CastelGandolfo,15 August2005. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documen /hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20050815_assunzione‐maria_en.html
________.“EucharisticConcelebrationwiththeMembersoftheInternational TheologicalCommission:HomilyofHisHolinessBenedictXVI.”Redemptoris MaterChapel,Rome,6October2006. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documen s/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20061006_commissione‐teologica_en.html
________.AngelusAddress,WorldMissionDay,St.Peter’sSquare,22October2006. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2006/document /hf_ben‐xvi_ang_20061022_en.html
259
________.“SolemnityoftheNativityoftheLord:HomilyofHisHolinessBenedictXVI,” St.Peter’sBasilica,24December2006. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documen s/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20061224_christmas_en.html________.“ApostolicJourneyofHisHolinessBenedictXVItoAustriaontheOccasion
ofthe850thAnniversaryoftheFoundationoftheShrineofMariazell:EucharisticCelebration,Homily,”Mariazell,Austria,8September2007.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20070908_mariazell_en.html
________.“GeneralAudience,”PaulVIAudienceHall,9September2009.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_aud_20090909_en.html
________.“Homily,CelebrationofFirstVesperswithUniversityStudentsfromRome,”VaticanBasilica,17December2009.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20091217_vespri‐universitari_en.html.
________.“TeDeumandFirstVespersoftheSolemnityofMaryMotherofGod,31December,2009,Rome.”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20091231_te‐deum_en.html
________.“VisittothePontificalRomanMajorSeminaryinHonoroftheMemorialofOurLadyofTrust.”ChapeloftheSeminary,12February2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/february/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20100212_seminario‐romano‐mag_en.html
________.“MassoftheLord’sSupper:HomilyofHisHolinessBenedictXVI”St.JohnLateranBasilica,1April2010.http://www.pcf.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_hom_20100401_coena‐domini_en.html
________.“MessageofhisHoliness,PopeBenedictXVIfortheTwenty‐SixthWorldYouthDay(2011),”6August2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/youth/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_mes_20100806_youth_en.html
________.“Angelus,”CastelGandolfo,23Sep,2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2010/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_ang_20100912_en.html
________.“AddressofHisHolinessBenedictXVItoMembersoftheInternationalTheologicalCommission,”VaticanCityConsistoryHall,3December2010.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/december/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20101203_cti_en.html
260
________.“UrbietOrbiChristmasMessage,2010.”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/urbi/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_mes_20101225_urbi_en.html
________.“Angelus”Rome,April10,2011.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2011/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_ang_20110410_en.html
________.WelcomeCeremonywithYoungPeople.PlazadeCibeles,Madrid,18August2011.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/august/documents/hf_ben‐xvi_spe_20110818_accoglienza‐giovani2‐madrid_en.html