Church History and Guilt

An Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Book:

Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith (pp. 279-283)

          "When we look at this constant story of “mea culpa” in the Church, we may ask ourselves---and I, too, have asked myself this –what exactly is surprising about it, what is new about this Holy Year?  My impression—and I should like to offer this for discussion here—is that something changed at the beginning of the modern era, when Protestantism created a new kind of church history, with the aim of showing that the Catholic Church was not merely stained with sin, as she has always known and said, but that she was, allegedly, completely corrupted and ruined and no longer the Church of Christ; rather, she has, on the contrary, become an instrument of the Antichrist.  Consequently—since she was corrupt through and through—she was said to be no longer the Church but an anti-church.  At this point, something had obviously changed.  A Catholic historiography now necessarily grew up in opposition to this picture, with the aim of showing that the Catholic Church—despite those sins that could not be denied and were more than obvious—was nonetheless the Church of Christ and remained the Church of the holy saints, the holy Church.  At that time when two kinds of historiography were opposed to each other and when the Catholic historians felt obliged to write apologetics to demonstrate that in spite of everything the quality of holiness still remained in the Church, then necessarily the voice in which sins are confessed in the Church becomes more quiet." 

          "The position became still worse in the course of the Enlightenment; let us recall Voltaire’s “Écrasez I’Infâme!”  Ultimately, the accusations were growing in scope right up to those of Nietzsche, in which the Church appears, no longer as merely failing to do the will of Christ, but as the great evil of all evils afflicting mankind, as effecting the alienation of man from himself, something from which he must finally be liberated in order to become once more himself.  We see the same theme, differently worked out, in Marxism.  For Marxism, too, the Church, Christianity as such, alienates man from himself, gives its sanction to oppression, and stands in the way of progress.  Since the Enlightenment, many deplorable historical realities have been exaggerated into real myths—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of witches—and these have grown far beyond the historical facts into mythical bugbears that not merely justify but positively demand the rejection of the Church.  Any attempt to see history as being a little less black and white, to distinguish a little more clearly the various ways in which different people were responsible, to see the complexity of these phenomena and to see what the various people responsible were trying to do, is condemned beforehand as a concession to inhumanity.  When certain distressing facts grow into a kind of negative confession of faith and are no longer able to be seen in the context of forces and effects that can be distinguished from one another, then it becomes more difficult for the faithful to join in the confession of being at fault:  it would now seem necessary to make clear that the Church, in spite of it all, has been and still remains an instrument of salvation, a force for good and not for the destruction of man."

          "Today we find ourselves in a new situation, in which the Church can, with greater freedom, invite us to return to the confession of sins and can thus also invite other people to confession and to a more profound reconciliation.  We have seen the enormous destruction wrought by various kinds of atheism, which brought forth a new level of anti-humanism, of the destruction and ruin of man.  The atrocities that the atheistic systems of the twentieth century have invented and practiced cast all previous horrors into the shadows; we cannot take them in without shuddering.  The rejection of the Church, the rejection of God and of Christ, does not save anyone; on the contrary—we can see what appalling capacities it unchains within man.  The question is once more posed for everyone:  Where are we?  What can save us?  Thus, we can admit to guilt with a new openness and, at the same time, recognize with a new gratitude the gift of the Lord, which he grants to us through the Church and which all the sins in her have never been able and never will be able to ruin or spoil."

          "To end with, I should like very briefly to formulate three criteria for dealing correctly with the church’s guilt and for the right way to purify our memory."

          "The first criterion:  The present-day Church cannot set herself up as a tribunal to deliver judgments on previous generations—even though sins of the past are necessarily implicated in the “mea culpa”; for without the sins of the past, we are unable to understand the situation of today.  It is neither possible nor permissible for the Church to dwell arrogantly in the present day, to feel herself exempt from sins and to make out that it is the sins of others, of the past, that are the source of evil.  The confession of the sins of other people does not set us free from acknowledging the sins of the present day.  Rather, it helps to awaken our own consciences and to open up the way toward conversion for us all."

          "A second criterion:  Confessing, according to Augustine, means: “Doing the truth”² That is why it demands, above all, the discipline and the humility belonging to truth, not to deny all the evil that has been carried out in the Church, yet also to avoid marking up against ourselves, in false modesty, sins that were never committed or concerning which where is no historical certainty."

          "Third criterion:  Again in accordance with Augustine, we have to say that a Christian confessio peccati always has to go hand in hand with a confessio laudis.  In any honest examination of conscience we can see that for our part in every generation we have done much that is evil.  Yet we can also see that, in spite of our sins, God has always purified and renewed the Church and has always entrusted great things to fragile vessels.  And who could fail to recognize how much good has been done, for example, in the past two centuries by new religious congregations and by lay movements in the sphere of education, in the social sector, in efforts on behalf of the weak, the sick, the poor, and the suffering, even while those centuries were at the same time ravaged by the atrocities of the atheistic systems?  It would be failing in honesty to see only our evil and not the good that God has effected through the faithful—in spite of their sins.  The Church Fathers saw this paradox of guilt and grace as being summed up in the words of the Bride in the Song of Songs: “Nigra sum sed formosa” (Song I:4).  “I am stained with sins, yet beautiful”—beautiful through your grace and through what you have done.  The Church is able to confess the sins of the past and of the present in all openness and confidence, in the knowledge that evil will never completely ruin her; in the knowledge that the Lord is stronger than our sins and renews his Church again and again, that she may continue to be the instrument of God’s good works in our world."

Spiritual Sense of Scripture




 
  


"The spiritual sense may be defined as the meaning derived from the biblical text when 'read under the influence of the Holy Spirit,' in the context of the Paschal Mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it" according to the Pontifical Biblical Commission document,
"Interpreting  the Bible in the Church" (1994).  It is the passion, death and resurrection of  Christ which provides a fresh context in which the ancient biblical texts can be  seen as fulfillment and consummation in Christ.  As Pius XII  observed:

      For God alone could have known this spiritual  meaning
     and have revealed it to us. Now our Divine Savior points out to us and  teaches
      us this same sense in the Holy Gospel; the Apostles also, following the  example
      of the Master, profess it in their spoken and written words; the  unchanging
      tradition of the Church approves it; and finally the most ancient  usage of the
      liturgy proclaims it . . .

One example given by the Pontifical Biblical  Commission (PBC) was the covenant oath which established David's throne forever,  which the New Testament revealed is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  The PBC speaks  of the new context as "life in the Spirit." 
  
Old Testament texts that relate directly to the pashcal mystery of Christ may have a spiritual sense as their literal sense. This is frequently the case in the New Testament. Hence there isn't always a distinction  between the two senses. 

On the other hand, John 19: 33-36 records that the two soldiers did not break the legs of our Lord on the Cross because he was already dead and says that this was so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled, referring  to Exodus 12: 46.  However, this latter passage refers to the Passover of the  lamb that God required the Israelites to celebrate annually.  It is only when we  reflect on the Exodus passage in light of the paschal mystery that we see the  spiritual sense emerge according to Fr. Bernard Orchard.

What is important here is that the principle of coming to know and see the spiritual sense of Scripture, which was rejected by the "reformers" during the Reformation, was annunciated by Vatican II as a "revival of the great patristic tradition" (Dei Verbum 12c). Perhaps we should 
remember the injunction of St. Jerome, "Whoever interprets the gospel in a spirit and mentality other than those in which it was written disturbs believers  and perverts the gospel of Christ . .  ." (quoted by Pope Leo XII in Providentissimus Deus 5).



  


 

 

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

Lectio Divina: A Popular Revival Underway

Our Holy Father has recently urged Catholics to renew an ancient practice in the Church, namely to initiate the regular devotional practice of lectio divina.

In lectio divina the Scriptures are opened up to their interior or hidden meaning by the action of the Holy Spirit, as our spirit is lifted up from earth to heaven to "touch heavenly secrets."  This occurs through a four stage process that includes reading, meditation, prayer and contemplation.  As Guigo II, ninth abbot of the Grand Chartreuse, writing in the twelfth century described it concisely:

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

Church History: Apostolic Succession

            In writing the first Church history to come down to us Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-341) noted:

I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path. I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments . . . (Church History, Book I) 

Eusebius thus records a concern that modern historians would share, namely that history is an imperfect science.  History is based upon a fragmented record of the past and cannot be recreated perfectly. His prayer, on the other hand, is reflective of his world view as a Christian. In fact, all Christian historians, hopefully,  share a common world view grounded in faith. 

Historians are well aware that it is not possible to eliminate all bias from one’s history since history is, in fact, an interpretation of the events and culture of a particular era seen through the lense of the historian.  Though the historian seeks primary sources and strives for a level of impartiality, considering alternative theses and perspectives, he or she can never completely divorce themselves from their world view.  Distinguished Church historian Warren H. Carroll, author of a five volume work, A History of Christendom, observes, “For the believing Christian, the dividing line between history and apologetics is always rather shadowy and artificial, since all truth is fundamentally one, and Christianity is pre‑eminently a historical religion" (Vol. I,  287).

So we should not be surprised to observe that Eusebius begins by establishing the divinity of Christ and the divine institution of his Church.  Nor is it surprising to see him discuss the concept of apostolic succession as a primary focus, to demonstrate the historical basis of what some mistakenly consider only a theological concept.  He sought to “preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.”  But first he testifies concerning St. Peter and St. Paul that:

both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: ‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy…’ (Book 2)

        Eusebius goes on to mention both Linus and Clement as successors to the Chair of Peter and mentions the challenge facing him when he notes:

But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of Paul.

He notes that Paul’s disciples are mentioned both in his epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles, pointing out, “Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.”  Eusebius cites the writings of Tertullian and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who argue that it is precisely apostolic succession which proves the Church Christ established against other heretical claimants.  Thus, Bishop Irenaeus in an effort to oppose the Gnostic heretics wrote:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189])

            Evidence of apostolic succession then, can be found in Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus.  The Second Vatican Council states:

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors.  They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority'.  (Dei Verbum 7)

 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (Dei Verbum 8)

Thus, we observe in the earliest Church history of Eusebius and in the Early Church Fathers provide evidence of the concept of apostolic succession being used to distinguish the Church Christ established from others who would make similar claims.  Apostolic succession is essential to the Church Christ established, which is truly catholic.