Balthasar - In Purgatory we will know that we are finally going to overcome our sins

Purgatory: perhaps the deepest but also the most blissful kind of suffering. The terrible torture of having to settle now all the things we have dreaded a whole life long. The doors we have frantically held shut are now torn open. But all the while this knowledge: now for the first time I will be able to do it—that ultimate thing in me, that total thing. Now I can feel my wings growing; now I am fully becoming myself. . . . .

Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Grain of Wheat: Aphorisms (1953), chapter titled God

Balthasar - God "builds his temple" in our soul

Oh, the tirelessness of God’s love! Day by day to come personally into my soul, visiting it in human form just as men visit one another, in order—if the soul permits it—to build up his temple there, stone by stone, and not from a distance but with his own hand, as it were.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Grain of Wheat: Aphorisms (1953), chapter titled God


Balthasar - Holiness is "enduring God’s glance"

Holiness consists in enduring God’s glance. It may appear mere passivity to withstand the look of an eye; but everyone knows how much exertion is required when this occurs in an essential encounter. Our glances mostly brush by each other indirectly, or they turn quickly away, or they give themselves not personally but only socially. So too do we constantly flee from God into a distance that is theoretical, rhetorical, sentimental, aesthetic, or, most frequently, pious. Or we flee from him to external works. And yet, the best thing would be to surrender one’s naked heart to the fire of this all-penetrating glance. The heart would then itself have to catch fire, if it were not always artificially dispersing the rays that come to it as through a magnifying glass. Such enduring would be the opposite of a Stoic’s hardening his face: it would be yielding, declaring oneself beaten, capitulating, entrusting oneself, casting oneself into him. It would be childlike loving, since for children the glance of the father is not painful: with wide-open eyes they look into his. Little Thérèse—great, little Thérèse—could do it. Augustine’s magnificent formula on the essence of eternity: videntem videre—“to look at him who is looking at you”.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Grain of Wheat: Aphorisms (1953), chapter titled God

Balthasar - We are more in God than in ourselves

We belong more to God than to ourselves; thus, we are also more in him than in ourselves. Ours is only the way leading to the eternal image of us that he bears within himself. This way is like a carpet rolled out from him to us, a scroll prodiens ex ore Altissimt—“coming forth from the mouth of the Most High”—and we should, like children, learn how to copy it, how to trace the pre-scribed, pre-written characters that have been presented to us. The prescription, the law, is what Love has written out in advance, what Love presupposes and proposes to us that we might. . . become it.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Grain of Wheat: Aphorisms (1953), chapter titled God

Balthasar - We should always be "hearing [the] wellspring of our origin in God"

We cease to perceive water that continually flows, We hear our innermost wellspring, which flows forth from God, only when we make a conscious effort. This is why the saying of the Pythagoreans that the wise man perceives the music of the spheres is a truly religious saying. We should always be hearing, as with bodily ears, the gurgling wellspring of our origin in God.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Grain of Wheat: Aphorisms (1953), chapter titled God

Congar - Church as 'Jacob's ladder' between Christ and the world [The Wide World My Parish 4]

If then, this is the place of Jesus Christ, we have to determine what is the consequent place of the Church, in relation to him and in relation to the world. 

The Church is Church only because of Christ, but she is made up of human beings. She is a gathering of men among other gatherings of men, but bearing amongst them the mystery of Jesus Christ. She is the company of witnesses to him. In as much as it depends on men's faithfulness, she brings Christ to the world, offering it opportunities to recognize him as the key to its destiny. 

Provided we are careful not to turn a convenient and, surely, necessary distinction into a separation, it will be useful to look at the Church from each of two points of view: (1) as God's people, the community of Christians, she represents mankind towards Christ; (2) as institution, or sacrament of salvation, she represents Christ towards the world. Jacob 'dreamed that he saw a ladder standing on the earth, with its top reaching up into heaven; a stairway for the angels of God to go up and come down' (Gen. xxviii. 12; cf. John i. 51). Two mediations are joined in the Church, one going up, or representative, the other coming down, or sacramental; and through them she is the place where Christ gives himself to the world, and the world gives itself to Christ, the place where the two meet.

In this two-fold movement the Church actualizes the biblical idea of first-fruits. Coming from Christ and composed of men, she constantly bears the whole of one towards the whole of the other. When she takes root in some human grouping, there she makes Jesus Christ present and at work, that Son of God of whom St Paul writes that it is God's pleasure 'through him to win back all things, whether on earth or in heaven, into union with himself, making peace with them through his blood, shed on the cross' (Col. i. 20). No doubt this does not mean that all men, in the sense of each and every individual, will in fact be saved; it means that the act by which Christ makes the union effective is of itself really directed towards and includes all men, the totality of the world as such, offering all that is necessary for the achievement of the end that God has in view for them. 

Since the Church makes Jesus Christ present and active to the world, all worth is finally judged by her, and it is in regard to her that men are seen to be blessed or rejected. Clement of Alexandria had this in mind when he wrote, early in the third century, 'Just as God's will is a deed and it is called "the world", so his intention is man's salvation, and this is called "the Church".'* That is not plainly seen as physical things are: 'What do we see now? Not all things subject to him as yet' (Heb. ii, 8). What St Paul says of the Christian is not true of his personal life alone, but also of apostleship and of all that the Church does: 'Your life is hidden away now with Christ in God. Christ is your life, and when he is made manifest, you too will be made manifest in glory with him' (Col. iii. 3-4). 

It is true that to the eye of faith the Church never looks small in this great world. There she wears the best aspect she can, for the people she is able to reach. But, however modestly, she has always to seek to have and to show an appearance that betokens the Gospel, that betokens the Covenant, and a covenant that is in principle universal, for of that she is the sign and sacrament. 

Each one of us for his own little world, all of us for the world at large—we are Jacob's ladder. The representative going up of mankind to God and the representative coming down of Jesus Christ to the world pass through us. The whole Church is sacramental and missionary, and so is each Christian in his degree. Each of the members of any group (e.g. a parish) that seeks Christ through the Church stands for the whole group. To what extent do they effectively aid the group in its journey to God? It cannot he known. But they are its first-fruits, a sheaf offered up, and they are intercessors for it: had there been ten righteous men in the city, God would have spared it (Gen. xviii. 32). 

We can only look ahead, and so we cannot see anything, for there is nothing to see in the future, unless with the eyes of faith and hope. It has been rightly observed that mankind goes forward in its history backwards, because it only sees the road it has already travelled. When we reach the end, we shall see how the final results took shape in the beginnings, the first-fruits. And we shall give thanks. 

* Paedagogus, i, 6. It is very remarkable that this idea, of bearing the world's meaning like a living seed, was given expression at the very time when Christians were a small minority, looked on with contempt, persecuted and often killed off. See also the Letter to Diognetus (2-cent.): 'Christians are in the world what the soul is in the body. The soul is dispersed throughout the members of the body, so are Christians among the cities of the world. . . . Christians are as it were held in the prison of the world; yet it is they who sustain the world.' St Irenaeus (d. c. 200) speaks of the 'recapitulation' of all things in Christ, the Church's head (cf. Eph. i. 10). Origen (d. c. 254) calls the Church 'the universe of the universe'. And so on. 

Congar - Christ as the meaning of the world [The Wide World My Parish 3]

There is a hallowed truth in 'personalism', the feeling for the unique value of every person; a person is a whole in himself, one cannot be substituted for another, he is the contrary of Koestler's definition of the individual in a communist society: 'A mass of one million people divided by a million.' But we must not lose sight of other truths. Every man and woman is a person, but they all have something else in common, their humanity. Mankind is made up of persons, but they are born one of another, they need one another in order to expand and develop, each one has his own destiny, but together they pursue a common cause: 'The whole succession of men should be seen as one and the same man, continuing always to exist and to learn.' The world too is a totality; science treats it more and more as a whole, made of the same stuff, and all held together by an aggregate of interactions, attractions and compenetrations. 

The world as a whole has movement and therefore a meaning. Materialism treats this movement and meaning as purely a result of forces within nature, though adding that it is man's business to interpret them by his intelligence and to apply his energies to them. But from the Christian point of view the world as a whole has a meaning which comes to it from God's plan. Plan and meaning are not simply those which the mind can recognize by carefully looking at things. Into the world taken as a whole, into the pattern of human history, God put the revelation and then the gift of something new; it was not contained within the energies of the world but, once given, it became its central point and constituted its meaning: the Covenant, fully actualized in Jesus Christ who is indeed the union of God and man. Jesus is for the world, and the world is for Jesus: totality in quest of a meaning, and fullness of meaning. We cannot be sure that in Jesus Christ the world recognizes its meaning, but it is certain that he is that meaning. 

Let me make a comparison. At one time I was living my life from day to day, and pretty happily, for my job was interesting. But, without having the sophisticated absurdity of Sartre's 'Everything that exists is born for no purpose, continues through weakness, dies by chance', that life of mine was not illumined by the shining light of some clear purpose. Then one day I met somebody who put an idea into my head, something worth-while, an undertaking, in which I recognized the meaning of my life; it not only determined my present and future, but threw light on the past, for everything had been pointing in this direction, although I had not realized it. Taken up with living and doing my work, I had overlooked it, but even so it was the meaning of my life; it made sense of everything and held the whole together. Boris Pasternak is right: 'You have said that facts don't mean anything by themselves—not until a meaning is put into them. Well—the meaning you have to put into the facts to make them relevant to human beings is just that: it's Christianity, it's the mystery of personality.' 

Lossky - Faith and Theology

Authentic gnosis is inseparable from a charisma, an illumination by grace which transforms our intelligence. And since the object of contemplation is a personal existence and presence, true gnosis implies encounter, reciprocity, faith as a personal adherence to the personal presence of God Who reveals Himself. 

In the strict sense, among the ascetics of the Christian East gnosis constitutes the peak of the life of prayer—a peak where gnosis is given by God to man "who knows himself fallible," says Evagrius, and transforms his indigence in an unfolding of faith. We know Evagrius's formula, which has become an adage: "The one who has purity in prayer is true theologian, and the one who is true theologian has purity in prayer." 

But purity in prayer implies the state of silence. The hesychasts are the "silents": encounter and gift, gnosis is placed beyond the νους; it demands the surmounting and arrest of thought. 

Accordingly, this notion of silent gnosis as true theology does not directly correspond to theological teaching, to a theology which can and must be expressed through language. The direct foundation of theological teaching is the Incarnation of the Word—just as it is for iconography. Since the Word has incarnated Himself, the Word can be thought and taught—and in the same way the Word can be painted. 

But the Incarnation of the Word has no other goal than to lead as to the Father, in the Spirit. Theology as word and as thought must necessarily conceal a gnostic dimension, in the sense of the theology of contemplation and silence. It is a matter of opening our thought to a reality which goes beyond it. It is is matter of a new mode of thought where thought does not include, does not seize, but finds itself included and seized, mortified and vivified by contemplative faith. So theological teaching locates itself with difficulty between gnosis—charisma and silence, contemplative and existential knowledge—and episteme—science and reasoning. 

Theological language uses episteme, but cannot reduce itself to it without falling yet again from this world. It must set the spirit on the path to contemplation, to pure prayer where thought stops, to the ineffable. 

Indispensable to the thinking, conscientious Christian, theological teaching constitutes at once a necessity and a hindrance. Gnosis as contemplation is an exit to the state of a future age, a vision of what is beyond history, of what completes history, a projection of eschatology into the instant. Gnosis is eschatological—an unfolding of this silence which, said St. Isaac the Syrian, constitutes the language of the world which is coming. 

Theological teaching, on the contrary, is made for historical work here below. It must be adopted to space and time, to environments and points in time. It must never, for all that, forget contemplation; it must fertilize itself from instants of eschatological silence and attempt to express, or at least to suggest, the ineffable. Nourished with contemplation, it does not become established in silence but seeks to speak the silence, humbly, by a new use of thought and word. 

That is why theology must be praise and must dispose us to praise God. A St. Gregory of Nazianzus, a St. Simeon the New Theologian, both of whom have merited the name "Theologian," have expressed themselves with an inspired poetry. St. Jobs of Damascus is the author of magnificent hymns that we still sing: with him theology becomes liturgical praise. Even his most scholastic statements give site to poetic flights. 

Yet theological thought can also become a hindrance, and one must avoid indulging in it, abandoning oneself to the feverish illusion of concepts. Diadochus of Photice (chaps. 67 and 68) reminds us that the intellect, until it has achieved pure prayer, finds itself confined, ill at ease, and as it were, contracted by prayer: then it prefers theological thought which allows it to "dilate" itself. But one must not forget that there is a prayer which surpasses this "dilation"—the state of those who, in all intimacy, are filled with divine grace. 

Theological thought must dispose to praise and express contemplation. One must avoid it becoming a flight before the necessary "contraction" of prayer, to replace the mystery hued in silence with mental schemata easily handled, certainly, and whose use can intoxicate, but which are ultimately empty. 

How, then, are we to locate taught theology with a certain fairness between the "unutterable words" heard by St. Paul in the "third heaven" (the one which goes beyond the opposition of the sensible heaven and the intelligible heaven and represents the Divine Itself, the Untreated) and simple episteme, the constant temptation of the theologian? The right term could well be sophia, wisdom. Certainly, wisdom is a divine name. But one must take the word in its primitive sense which, in ancient Greece, indicated a certain human quality, mostly a skill, but the inspired skill of the craftsman and the artist. With Homer, sophia, the εντεχνος σοφια of the ancient Greeks, qualified the skill of the craftsman, of the artist, of the poet. The Septuagint has translated by Sophia the Hebrew expression which designates Divine Wisdom as God's perfect technique in His work. This sense unites with that of economy, of a certain prudence: phronesis and sophia are here very close. 

Theology as sophia is connected at once to gnosis and to episteme. It reasons, but seeks always to go beyond concepts. Here a necessary moment of the failure of human thought breaks in before the mystery that it wants to make knowable. A theology that constitutes itself into a system is always dangerous. It imprisons in the enclosed sphere of thought the reality to which it must open thought. 

In St. Paul, knowledge of God writes itself into a personal relationship expressed in terms of reciprocity: reciprocity with the object of theology (which, in reality, is a subject), reciprocity also with those to whom the theological word is addressed. At its best, it is communion: I know as I am known. Before the development of Christian theology, this mystery of communion appears absent from Greek thought: it is found only in Philo, that is to say, in a partially biblical context. Theology, then, is located in a relationship of revelation where the initiative belongs to God, while implying a human response, the free response of faith and love, which the theologians of the Reformation have often forgotten. The involvement of God calls forth our involvement. The theological quest supposes therefore the prior coming of what is quested, or rather of Him Who has already come to us and is present in us: God was the first to love us and He sent us His Son, as St. John says. This coming and this presence are seized by faith which thus underlies, with priority and in all necessity, theological thought. Certainly, faith is present in all walks, in all sciences of the human spirit, but as supposition, as working hypothesis: here, the moment of faith remains burdened with an uncertainty which proof alone could clear. Christian faith, on the contrary, is adherence to a presence which confers certitude, in such a way that certitude, here, is first. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the manifestation of realities unseen" (Heb. 11:1) . What one quests is already present, precedes us, makes possible our questing itself. "Through faith, we comprehend (we think) how the ages have been produced" (Heb. 11:3). Thus faith allows us to think, it gives us true intelligence. Knowledge is given to us by faith, that is to say, by our participatory adherence to the presence of Him Who reveals Himself. Faith is therefore not a psychological attitude, a mere fidelity. It is an ontological relationship between man and God, an internally objective relationship for which the catechumen prepares himself, and through which baptism and chrismation are conferred upon the faithful: gifts which restore and vivify the deepest nature of man. "In baptism," said Irenaeus, "one receives the immutable canon of truth." It is first the "rule of faith," transmitted to the initiated. But this regula fidei (Tertullian, Irenaeus) implies the very faculty of receiving it. "The heretics who have perverted the rule of truth," St. Irenaeus wrote, "preach themselves when they believe that they are preaching Christianity (Adversus haereses, Book III). This faculty is the personal existence of man, it is his nature made to assimilate itself to divine life—both mortified in their state of separation and death and vivified by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Faith as ontological participation included in a personal meeting is therefore the first condition for theological knowledge.

Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (1978) p. 13-17

Lewis - The Great Divorce Ch.5 - The Episcopal Ghost (God as Reality, not just "spiritual")

For a moment there was silence under the cedar trees and then—pad, pad, pad—it was broken. Two velvet-footed lions came bouncing into the open space, their eyes fixed upon each other, and started playing some solemn romp. Their manes looked as if they had been just dipped in the river whose noise I could hear close at hand, though the trees hid it. Not greatly liking my company, I moved away to find that river, and after passing some thick flowering bushes, I succeeded. The bushes came almost down to the brink. It was as smooth as Thames but flowed swiftly like a mountain stream: pale green where trees overhung it but so clear that I could count the pebbles at the bottom. Close beside me I saw another of the Bright People in conversation with a ghost. It was that fat ghost with the cultured voice who had addressed me in the bus, and it seemed to be wearing gaiters.

‘My dear boy, I’m delighted to see you,’ it was saying to the Spirit, who was naked and almost blindingly white. ‘I was talking to your poor father the other day and wondering where you were.’

‘You didn’t bring him?’ said the other.

‘Well, no. He lives a long way from the bus, and, to be quite frank, he’s been getting a little eccentric lately. A little difficult. Losing his grip. He never was prepared to make any great efforts, you know. If you remember, he used to go to sleep when you and I got talking seriously! Ah, Dick, I shall never forget some of our talks. I expect you’ve changed your views a bit since then. You became rather narrow-minded towards the end of your life: but no doubt you’ve broadened out again.’

‘How do you mean?’

‘Well, it’s obvious by now, isn’t it, that you weren’t quite right. Why, my dear boy, you were coming to believe in a literal Heaven and Hell!’

‘But wasn’t I right?’

‘Oh, in a spiritual sense, to be sure. I still believe in them in that way. I am still, my dear boy, looking for the Kingdom. But nothing superstitious or mythological. . . .’

‘Excuse me. Where do you imagine you’ve been?’

‘Ah, I see. You mean that the grey town with its continual hope of morning (we must all live by hope, must we not?), with its field for indefinite progress, is, in a sense, Heaven, if only we have eyes to see it? That is a beautiful idea.’

‘I didn’t mean that at all. Is it possible you don’t know where you’ve been?’

‘Now that you mention it, I don’t think we ever do give it a name. What do you call it?’

‘We call it Hell.’

‘There is no need to be profane, my dear boy. I may not be very orthodox, in your sense of that word, but I do feel that these matters ought to be discussed simply, and seriously, and reverently.’

‘Discuss Hell reverently? I meant what I said. You have been in Hell: though if you don’t go back you may call it Purgatory.’

‘Go on, my dear boy, go on. That is so like you. No doubt you’ll tell me why, on your view, I was sent there. I’m not angry.’

‘But don’t you know? You went there because you are an apostate.’

‘Are you serious, Dick?’

‘Perfectly.’

‘This is worse than I expected. Do you really think people are penalised for their honest opinions? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those opinions were mistaken.’

‘Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?’

‘There are indeed, Dick. There is hide-bound prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty, and timidity, and stagnation. But honest opinions fearlessly followed—they are not sins.’

‘I know we used to talk that way. I did it too until the end of my life when I became what you call narrow. It all turns on what are honest opinions.’

‘Mine certainly were. They were not only honest but heroic. I asserted them fearlessly. When the doctrine of the Resurrection ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given me, I openly rejected it. I preached my famous sermon. I defied the whole chapter. I took every risk.’

‘What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came—popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?’

‘Dick, this is unworthy of you. What are you suggesting?’

‘Friend, I am not suggesting at all. You see, I know now. Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause. When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment’s real resistance to the loss of our faith?’

‘If this is meant to be a sketch of the genesis of liberal theology in general, I reply that it is a mere libel. Do you suggest that men like. . .’

‘I have nothing to do with any generality. Nor with any man but you and me. Oh, as you love your own soul, remember. You know that you and I were playing with loaded dice. We didn’t want the other to be true. We were afraid of crude salvationism, afraid of a breach with the spirit of the age, afraid of ridicule, afraid (above all) of real spiritual fears and hopes.’

‘I’m far from denying that young men may make mistakes. They may well be influenced by current fashions of thought. But it’s not a question of how the opinions are formed. The point is that they were my honest opinions, sincerely expressed.’

‘Of course. Having allowed oneself to drift, unresisting, unpraying, accepting every half-conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the Faith. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend: a drunkard reaches a point at which (for the moment) he actually believes that another glass will do him no harm. The beliefs are sincere in the sense that they do occur as psychological events in the man’s mind. If that’s what you mean by sincerity they are sincere, and so were ours. But errors which are sincere in that sense are not innocent.’

‘You’ll be justifying the Inquisition in a moment!’

‘Why? Because the Middle Ages erred in one direction, does it follow that there is no error in the opposite direction?’

‘Well, this is extremely interesting,’ said the Episcopal Ghost. ‘It’s a point of view. Certainly, it’s a point of view. In the meantime. . .’

‘There is no meantime,’ replied the other. ‘All that is over. We are not playing now. I have been talking of the past (your past and mine) only in order that you may turn from it forever. One wrench and the tooth will be out. You can begin as if nothing had ever gone wrong. White as snow. It’s all true, you know. He is in me, for you, with that power. And—I have come a long journey to meet you. You have seen Hell: you are in sight of Heaven. Will you, even now, repent and believe?’

‘I’m not sure that I’ve got the exact point you are trying to make,’ said the Ghost.

‘I am not trying to make any point,’ said the Spirit. ‘I am telling you to repent and believe.’

‘But my dear boy, I believe already. We may not be perfectly agreed, but you have completely misjudged me if you do not realise that my religion is a very real and a very precious thing to me.’

‘Very well,’ said the other, as if changing his plan. ‘Will you believe in me?’

‘In what sense?’

‘Will you come with me to the mountains? It will hurt at first, until your feet are hardened. Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows. But will you come?’

‘Well, that is a plan. I am perfectly ready to consider it. Of course I should require some assurances . . . I should want a guarantee that you are taking me to a place where I shall find a wider sphere of usefulness—and scope for the talents that God has given me—and an atmosphere of free inquiry—in short, all that one means by civilisation and—er—the spiritual life.’

‘No,’ said the other. ‘I can promise you none of these things. No sphere of usefulness: you are not needed there at all. No scope for your talents: only forgiveness for having perverted them. No atmosphere of inquiry, for I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see the face of God.’

‘Ah, but we must all interpret those beautiful words in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? “Prove all things” . . . to travel hopefully is better than to arrive.’

‘If that were true, and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for.’

‘But you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than stagnation?’

‘You think that, because hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched.’

‘Well, really, you know, I am not aware of a thirst for some ready-made truth which puts an end to intellectual activity in the way you seem to be describing. Will it leave me the free play of Mind, Dick? I must insist on that, you know.’

‘Free, as a man is free to drink while he is drinking. He is not free still to be dry.’ The Ghost seemed to think for a moment. ‘I can make nothing of that idea,’ it said.

‘Listen!’ said the White Spirit. ‘Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.’

‘Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things.’

‘You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.’

‘If we cannot be reverent, there is at least no need to be obscene. The suggestion that I should return at my age to the mere factual inquisitiveness of boyhood strikes me as preposterous. In any case, that question-and-answer conception of thought only applies to matters of fact. Religious and speculative questions are surely on a different level.’

‘We know nothing of religion here: we think only of Christ. We know nothing of speculation. Come and see. I will bring you to Eternal Fact, the Father of all other facthood.’

‘I should object very strongly to describing God as a “fact”. The Supreme Value would surely be a less inadequate description. It is hardly. . . .’

‘Do you not even believe that He exists?’

‘Exists? What does Existence mean? You will keep on implying some sort of static, ready-made reality which is, so to speak, “there”, and to which our minds have simply to conform. These great mysteries cannot be approached in that way. If there were such a thing (there is no need to interrupt, my dear boy) quite frankly, I should not be interested in it. It would be of no religious significance. God, for me, is something purely spiritual. The spirit of sweetness and light and tolerance—and, er, service, Dick, service. We mustn’t forget that, you know.’

‘If the thirst of the Reason is really dead . . .’, said the Spirit, and then stopped as though pondering. Then suddenly he said, ‘Can you, at least, still desire happiness?’

‘Happiness, my dear Dick,’ said the Ghost placidly, ‘happiness, as you will come to see when you are older, lies in the path of duty. Which reminds me. . . . Bless my soul, I’d nearly forgotten. Of course I can’t come with you. I have to be back next Friday to read a paper. We have a little Theological Society down there. Oh yes! there is plenty of intellectual life. Not of a very high quality, perhaps. One notices a certain lack of grip—a certain confusion of mind. That is where I can be of some use to them. There are even regrettable jealousies. . . . I don’t know why, but tempers seem less controlled than they used to be. Still, one mustn’t expect too much of human nature. I feel I can do a great work among them. But you’ve never asked me what my paper is about! I’m taking the text about growing up to the measure of the stature of Christ and working out an idea which I feel sure you’ll be interested in. I’m going to point out how people always forget that Jesus (here the Ghost bowed) was a comparatively young man when he died. He would have outgrown some of his earlier views, you know, if he’d lived. As he might have done, with a little more tact and patience. I am going to ask my audience to consider what his mature views would have been. A profoundly interesting question. What a different Christianity we might have had if only the Founder had reached his full stature! I shall end up by pointing out how this deepens the significance of the Crucifixion. One feels for the first time what a disaster it was: what a tragic waste . . . so much promise cut short. Oh, must you be going? Well, so must I. Goodbye, my dear boy. It has been a great pleasure. Most stimulating and provocative. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.’

The Ghost nodded its head and beamed on the Spirit with a bright clerical smile—or with the best approach to it which such unsubstantial lips could manage—and then turned away humming softly to itself ‘City of God, how broad and far.’

Congar - Biblical idea of 'first-fruits' (part that represents the whole) [The Wide World My Parish 2]

THE BIBLE AND STATISTICS

[T]he Bible shows little interest in the quantitative aspects of things. . . . 

It is disconcerting to notice how often numbers given in the Bible do not mean just the same as numbers mean for us. It happens quite often that, in parallel accounts, the figures given in one do not agree with those given in the other. . . . Biblical exegetes have a ready answer: they tell us that there were several different sources and editors. But the difficulty remains; for the final editor or whoever gathered the sources, who was no more stupid than we are, must have noticed that the figures were different, and yet he left them. They cannot then have had the same importance or exactly the same meaning for him as for us. In many other passages numbers have a symbolical signification . . . Or again, sometimes numbers are arranged according to a certain idea, to convey some meaning, or even for the sake of symmetry and balance in the context: a good example is the genealogy of Jesus as set out by St Matthew, who groups the generations in three series of fourteen. There is another example in the figures of the members of Jacob's family who came into Egypt, the total of whom has been so arranged as to make seventy, a mystic number. 

THE FEW WHO REPRESENT THE WHOLE

The fundamental biblical category is not quantity but rather the idea of representative elements having a universal dynamic value; these features are found in the typically biblical notion of first-fruits. 'Biblical thought is all-embracing, it includes the particular in the whole, whether as seed, root or fruit of a tree' (W. Vischer). We must look at this more closely. First of all, the Bible is not concerned with numbers as such, but with the fact that a number of individuals actualize the characteristics of the real type that governs and precedes them: we have only to consider what the Old Testament says of Edom and Israel respectively. The New Testament is interested in the totalities which are deemed to be present in a representative part of each. . . . St Paul often speaks in this way. He refers to 'the gospel which has been preached to all creation under heaven' (Col. i. 23); the Jerusalem Bible suggests that this is only an hyperbole, but surely there is something else in it as well. Paul also writes 'the gospel which has reached you, which now bears fruit and thrives in you, as it does all the world over' (Col. i. 5-6) . . . These pointers might seem insignificant were it not for the fact that they form part of a whole context, well known to specialists, in which the idea of totality is very strongly marked. 

But this totality is considered as represented in a part of itself, which is the bearer, according to God's 'plan', of the destiny of the whole. Such biblical studies as those of Wilhelm Vischer show that this dynamic and continuous plan is characterized by the idea of Pars pro toto, a part for the whole. Mankind is chosen to represent the world, to give God the praise of all creation; Israel is chosen for mankind, to be God's witness and priest amongst men, and at bottom the Jewish people has maintained its consciousness of this vocation and ideal as the indelible mark of its chosenness, even when it has fallen short of its call : 'A minority in the service of a majority." But for us Israel is now the Church, and it is to Christians that we have to apply the idea of being the dynamic representative minority that is spiritually responsible for the final destiny of all. 

Even within Israel a part often stood for the whole. When the more fervent Jews were gathered at Jerusalem for the great feasts, it was all Israel that was, mystically, assembled there. When, from the eighth century B. C., the prophets began to foretell the destruction of the Holy City and its Temple, they spoke prophetically of 'the remnant', whose size was of little importance and was not made clear, but which would represent the whole of the new Israel. Finally, the new Israel is represented and has its points of departure, not in a collective remnant, but in one person, the Son of Man, who bears in himself all the Holy People of the Most High. Fundamentally, the Christian doctrine of the Redemption cannot be understood apart from the biblical idea of representative inclusion of which a few examples have just been given. It is indeed constantly 'a part for the whole': God looked at a great multitude and brought them into his design, seeing them in a little group or in a single person who providentially was bearer of the good that was meant for all. 

THE SEED OF LIFE

That is why we said above that the ideas of totality and of representative value are joined in the typically biblical notion of first-fruits. The apostolic writings are full of it. According to St James' epistle, Christians, to whom birth is given by the Father through his true word, are the first-fruits of all his creation (i. 18). For St Paul, Christ is the first-fruits of resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23) ; and Stephanas and his fellows are the first-fruits of Achaia (I Cor. xvi. 15), Epaenetus of Asia (Rom. xvi. 5). Clearly Paul saw in the first of a group or a country an example of the divine pattern according to which that first contains all that is to follow. The idea can be applied to the founder of some group, e.g. of a church or a religious order . . . We are now such rabid individualists that ideas of this sort no longer occur to us; and yet, even humanly speaking, we should not be what we are, or rather, we should not be at all, had there not been a First in whom the future was contained. In one of his sermons, Newman has a fine passage on the bond that unites us with our forerunners, of whom we often know nothing but to whom we nevertheless owe things that are very dear and precious to us.* Who built the house in which we were born and grew up? Who began the society in which we have found opportunity and happiness, human or specifically Christian? In biblical language all these things would be 'first-fruits'; but here we have to go beyond the purely human point of view. 

We all know that for Christians, there is a real history of salvation: that is, a chain of events and divine dealings in accordance with a design seen by God in its wholeness from all eternity, but which is unfolded bit by bit during the course of time. To the eyes of God, its continuation was in its beginning, he saw the whole in the first-fruits. For God, Abraham, alone in a world that was already populous, was already the people that would make up the company of believers; the promises and blessings given to the patriarch were given for this people. Thus Abraham in his solitude was as it were a seed that was able to fertilize the field of the world, a kind of sacrament of universal faith and salvation. 

And do we not see there a sort of general law, a 'constant' of all creation? With deep penetration did Gustave Thibon write that 'Any order that transcends another can insert itself into that other only under a form that is infinitely small'; he gives as examples the insertion of life into the inorganic world and of the power of thought into simply biological life; to which may be added, of the Church's supernatural life into the world of conscious life. And indeed, what is life, quantitatively considered, in face of the enormous mass of lifeless matter? It is so small in relation to the mass as to be hardly perceptible, and yet it is the promise and the riches and the future. 

The same can be said of conscious life in relation to life in general. Pascal's reed is a well-known symbol,† but it does not speak so persuasively as figures, and here are the figures: It has been calculated that if the whole population of the world were put into the Lake of Geneva, which is not all that large, the level of the water would rise by only 11¼ inches. That is a matter of bodies. But consciousness has neither density nor volume nor weight, and yet it is the greatest thing in the world. And then what shall we say of grace, of which the Church is as it were the shrine? Here we may recall that fine piece, No 792, of Pascal's Pensees, on the three orders: the bodily order, the order of mind, and the order of charity or holiness. 

The infinite distance between body and mind is a figure of the infinitely more infinite distance between mind and charity—for charity is supernatural. 

The glory of greatness shines in vain for people who are in search of understanding. 

Kings, the rich, public leaders, none of the great ones of the world see the glory of men of intellect. 

The greatness of wisdom, which is nothing if not of God, is invisible to worldlings and intellectuals. These are three orders that differ in kind. 

Great geniuses have their power, their glory, their greatness, their triumphs, their lustre, and have no need of worldly greatness, it is no concern of theirs. They are seen by the mind, not with the eyes; and that is enough. 

The saints have their power, their glory, their triumphs, their lustre, and have no need of wordly [sic] or intellectual greatness, with which they have no concern, for these neither add to nor take away anything from them. They are seen by God and the angels, not by the body or by inquisitive minds; God is enough for them. 

Archimedes would be equally revered whatever his place in the world. He fought no eye-filling battles, but he gave his discoveries to every man's mind. How glorious he was to the mind! 

Jesus Christ, without wordly [sic] goods and without any outward show of learning, belongs to his own order of holiness. He did not invent anything, he did not govern; but he was humble, patient, holy, holy to God, terrifying to evil spirits, without sin. With how much state, with what unutterable splendour, he comes to the eyes of the heart that perceives wisdom! 

It would have been useless for Archimedes to play the prince in his geometry books, though he was a prince. 

It would have been useless for our Lord Jesus Christ to come like a king to dazzle us in his kingdom of holiness; he came indeed with the glory of his own order !  

.. All bodies together, and all minds together, and all their works, cannot equal the least movement of charity—that is of an infinitely higher order. 

* Parochial Sermons, vol. iii (London, 1836), Sermon 17.

† 'Man is only a reed, the weakest thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed' (Penses, vi, 347).

Yves Congar, The Wide World My Parish: Salvation and its Problems (1962) p. 9-16

Keefe - Real Presence Not Physical, Not Part of Fallen World, but Rather Restoration of it

A question over the physical presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist has been rattling around the English-speaking Church for the past...