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

©copyrightbyCHRISTOPHERSTEPHENCOLLINS

2012

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