Benedict of Nursia

 It's been a long time since my last post. Creating and maintaining a blog is a work that requires a good deal of discipline. It seems to require as well a strong sense of its purpose. It is uncertain to me which of these requirements is lacking in this blog, perhaps both. Yet, periodically, I renew my inspiration to post to the blog because of some new insight or special reading that I happen to encounter.

New inspiration has arrived! It is coming from a little booklet entitled "Benedict of Nursia, His Message for Today". The following quotes from this 63 page booklet I found to be resonant with a post from April 13, 2009. I also noticed a similarity between the environment St. Benedict describes as prevalent at the time and our current environment.

"… Newer studies have shown that Benedict relied very much on models for his Rule, especially the so-called Regula Magistri. …it is precisely in comparison to the model that the originality and the true greatness of Benedict can be seen. In contrast to a pessimistic, suspicious, and often rigorous review of humanity in the model, Benedict shows a trustful attitude toward his monks. Trusting in the good core of human beings was anything but a matter of course in a time when hostile parties vied in committing horrors against each other, in which the moral strength of Roman culture was being extinguished and no new initiative toward a peaceful common life for human beings was on the horizon.… In this unreliable age when people lived in fear and mistrust one another, Benedict ventured to believe in the goodness of human beings and did not lead his monks with suspicious harshness, but in trust, kindness, and brotherly love." p. 14

 "It emerges from Benedict's words that he was not merely a realist, but also an optimist who did not let himself be driven to resignation or cynicism by human weakness, but was able to live calmly and confidently, with a profound sense of humor and a powerful trust in God's grace, in the midst of human confusion." p.15

Pope Francis - Insights

from The Great Reformer – Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope by Austen Ivereigh, p. 111, 113.

 While reading Denzinger's Enchiridion—a widely used collection of church teachings—Bergoglio had been struck by an early-church formula of Christian faith: that the faithful people was infallible in credendo, in its believing. The Vatican Il document, Lumen Gentium, had recast the Church not as an institution so much as a people, the "People of God"; from Denzinger he had grasped that the "people" was also a repository of faith. As Bergoglio later wrote: "When you want to know what the Church teaches, you go to the Magisterium . . but when you want to know how the Church teaches, you go to the faithful people. The Magisterium will teach you who is Mary, but the faithful people will teach you how to love Mary."

In his first talk as provincial, Bergoglio would use this notion to reject ideologies, From now on, the idea would appear constantly in his writings. The “pueblo fiel” were both vaccine and antidote, the hermeneutic of a true reform.

……

Bergoglio … was not a theologian and was wary of being ensnared by labels. But his own view of history, both national and Christian, pointed him in the same direction, In the idea of "God's holy faithful people" Bergoglio had what theologians call a hermeneutic—an interpretative key, or yardstick—that would allow him to reform and unite the province, beyond ideology, by focusing very directly on the poor. It was neither conservative …nor clerical: he did not believe that the clergy, or the bishops, or Rome were in possession of the truth that they distributed downward, but that the Holy Spirit was revealed through a dialogue between the pueblo fiel and the universal Church. It was a radical stance, an option for the ordinary people, the fishermen and shepherds to whom God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ two thousand years ago. 

WOLF HALL - AN AMAZON REVIEW?

WOLF HALL by Hilary Mantel Wolf Hall is a 2009 novel published by Hilary Mantel. I’ve only gotten a couple hundred pages under my belt but somehow I feel compelled to opine on the author’s portrayal of the characters. (I feel compelled to opine quite often.)

The characters are members of the Royal court in the early 16th century, the prominent religious influencers of the time and the court hangers-on wishing to curry favor. These characters all exhibit a piety in their daily lives that is not common in today’s Sunday-only religious mentality. They wear religious relics and medals, they are inspired by some saint or another, and they pray over daily actions and decisions that have to be made. This reminded me of the daily life that was part the Hebrew characters of the Old Testament. Life was a journey with God walking along side you.

The author also portrays the social and political ambiance of the time. As this aspect of their lives is portrayed I got the sense that the displays of piety and religious fervor were just a crust over an unreal piety; one that did not really convey a true sense of the Christian Spirit. Under this surface crust of Christian devotional practices lied a concern for social positioning and financial endeavors. They displayed a jealousy of and a pursuit of political power and contrived conniving actions in pursuit their objectives.

This started out as a sort of book review. Maybe I could post it on Amazon. But as I inked these thoughts the question formed in my mind, “Are we really any different today?”. 

I think not. Although perhaps our crust is a little thinner.

THE CERTAINTY OF CHRISTIAN HOPE

Building on the definition of hope in the previous post Balthasar goes on to express how our human nature cannot allow us certainty that one meets the necessary conditions of Christian hope.

"...it is only in so far as the “person” – or the I who goes beyond itself and toward all men – finds itself involved the going beyond ­­– or, in other words, in loving the neighbor in the way that

God who “makes his sun to rise … on the just and the unjust”, loves him – that it sees itself as being included in hope …. And also as one who must always ask himself whether he achieves this going beyond in reality and not just apparently, decisively and not just irresolutely, irrevocably and not just for a time. Even if someone could know himself as being in the “certainty” inherent in Christian hope, he still does not know whether he will transgress against love and thereby also forfeit the certainty of hope. It is therefore indispensable that every individual Christian be confronted, in the greatest seriousness, with the possibility of his becoming lost."

Dare We Hope, p.64, 2014 by Ignatius Press

DARE WE HOPE

 

Gabriel Marcel

 

Dare We Hope, "That All Men Be Saved" is the title of an essay by Hans Urs von   Balthasar. Balthasar draws a definition of hope from philosopher and Catholic   convert, Gabriel Marcel. It distinguishes the virtue of Hope from a mere wish. 

“Hope is essentially the open readiness of a soul  that has involved itself sufficiently,

at the inward level, with the experience of communion, to assume the mental attitude

 --- over and beyond mere will and cognition ---

in which it posits the living everlastingness that lends that experience both its security and pledge.”

Dare We Hope, p.62, 2014 by Ignatius Press

BACK TO BALTHASAR

This will be the first foray into one of the controversial propositions of Hans Urs von Balthasar as expounded in his book Dare We Hope.

In the opening chapter Balthasar presents two theses that introduce the discussions to follow in his book.

1.

Balthasar presents several Bible passages referring to a Christian being under judgement and having to choose between good or evil, life or death, mercy and judgement. I leave it to the reader to read these passages.

James 2:13; Deuteronomy 30:15; Jeremiah 21:8; Proverbs 12:28 L X X; Matthew 7:13 f.; 2 Peter 2:15; Didache 1:1; Barnabas 18-20.

He then asks:

“The question is whether God, with respect to his plan of salvation, ultimately depends, and wants to depend, upon man's choice; or whether his freedom, which wills only salvation and is absolute, might not remain above things human, created and, therefore, relative."

 2.

"One can also approach this in another way, and we will see that Anselm does so: assuming that men can be divided into those who are just and those who are unjust, can one likewise, then, divide the divine qualities in such a way as to leave mercy on one side and (punitive) justice on the other? And since the two cannot, as on Calderon’s stage, enter into noble competition with each other, it will probably have to be as described in a Spanish work on dogmatics [De Novissimis, Jose F. Sagues]: 'a healing punishment issues from sheer mercy' (this probably refers to Purgatory); 'a vengeful punishment [poena vindicative] from pure justice, and this corresponds strictly to the offense' (this refers to hell). Thus, where God's mercy (which is obviously taken as finite here) wears thin, it remains for "pure justice" to exert itself. Now, since precisely this sort of assumption that divine qualities are finite is not acceptable, a dispute arises about whether one who is under judgment, as a Christian, can hope for all men.”

Quoting Balthasar, “I ventured to answer this affirmatively”. This begins a defense of his conclusion as well as the reasons his detractors disagree.

Citizenship and Humility

How does one navigate between the concept of a noble experiment in human freedom such as the English pilgrim’s attempt to extricate their lives from oppressive government rule to today’s effort to subject America to another oppressive subjugation to government rule? As a child of the 1950’s and 1960’s I became enamored and was educated in the heroic effort of Englishmen, disenchanted with English rule, hoping to form a greater society where human freedom was fused with the greater good in a way that gave equal respect to both. But I find the concept of “equal respect” unable to find a foothold in current, bias filled cultural attitudes. Many people seek to defend their beliefs at any cost in spite of obvious facts that that do not support them. I say facts not arguments. Truth is not a consideration, only the degree to which a particular spin can be placed on the facts and at times regardless of the facts. All arguments are attributed to bias and conspiracy. When will we understand that peace requires a willingness to see in those who disagree with us elements of truth in their positions? When will we have the humility to admit to the flaws in our own positions? In our Constitutional Republic we assign this task to our elected representatives. We ask them to consider the welfare of all citizens by seeking truth in humility. It is appalling to see the low level to which this principle is applied by our leadership. The most successful and well-endowed country in history deserves much better.

We can take some lessons from St. Bernard. I’m just sayin’.