Dr. Dr. Robert Hickson
18 September 2013 Saint Joseph Cupertino
Reflections on the End of Time: Fortifying Convictions for the Sake of Courage and a Final Fidelity (Transcending (T ranscending the Dialectic of Liberal and Conservative) Epigraphs:
“In the revealed prophecy of the end of history a catastrophic end within history is foretold. Whoever believingly accepts this [apocalyptic] prophecy, that is to say, whoever takes it to be revelation, has no possibility of ignoring the fact that the end of Time [Apoc. 10:5], within history, will be a downfall, a catastrophe. Nonetheless, his attitude to history, his attitude to the future, may not be one of despair—and this for reasons arising out of that very same faith. The hope of him who thus believes, of him who [also] believes in the [extratemporal] temporal] “transpositi “transposition” on” as deliverance deliverance [as salvation], salvation], is by no means a hope directed purely upon the “beyond.” It is, rather, a hope that renders the believer able and willing to act here and now within history, indeed even to see a possibility of meaningful action within history history.. Admittedl Admittedly y, this attitude attitude [to hist histor ory] y],, as real really ly live lived, d, can flour flouris ish h only only on the the soil soil of that that beli believi eving ng unde unders rsta tandi nding ng of the the end end of Time— ime—an an end end [a cessa cessati tion on]] whic which, h, thoug though h catastrophic, does not [necessarily] mean disaster [a final futility, or missed goal]. This is one of the reasons why today, at a time of temptations to despair [and presumption?], it may appear necessary to bring into view a notion of the utterly End [a twofold Finis, both as “cessation” and as “goal”] in which an utterly realistic freedom from illusion not only does not contradict hope but in which the one serves to confirm and corroborate the other.” (Josef Pieper, The End of Time, pp. 78-79) ***
finis— also “In Latin the word for end— also means goal. End and goal, however, are certainly not the same thing. There may be an end that is not simultaneously a goal. Something may “cease” without having reached its goal [e.g ., ., eternal life, or salvation]. There may be an end that is characterized precisely by the goal having been missed, an end that is synonymous with non-attainment of the goal. Nevertheless, goal and end inwardly cohere. I refuse—and in doing so know that my refusal is correct—I reject the idea that I ought to believe the world so constructed that it is leading to an end in which the goal is missed and that, in other words, the name of the course of the world is “futility.”....And [in 1
contrast to the “intra-historical end”] it is only this end “outside time” [“an extra -temporal end of history”] of which we can finally say whether finis-end and finis-goal coincide in it or not.” (Josef Pieper, The End of Time , pp. 80-81) *** “To style the Church's attitude to history as unmitigated pessimism, however, [i.e., and and “esp “especi eciall ally y [the [the atti attitu tude de of] of] the the Catho Catholi licc Chur Church ch”— ”—as as Jacob Jacob Burkhardt Burkhardt claimed], claimed], is an unwarranted unwarranted simplifi simplification cation.. Such oversimplifi oversimplified ed characterizations become possible and, to some degree, meaningful only when the tense and complex co mplex structure of the Western Western conception of history [i.e., when “the tense and complex fabric of the Christian view of history” (103)], and above all the notion of the end of time, dissolves. This dissolution, by the way, does not imply the loss of all the individual elements of the old conception of history, for instance, the most unequivocally religious elements stemming from the depositum of revelation. What has been lost is the bond between them. (Josef Pieper, The End of Time , pp. 86-87 and 103) *** “How much the Enlightenment's doctrine of progress [with its “optimism”] rested upon a secularization of Christ Christian ian theolo theology gy,, more more precis precisely ely of the theology of the [Four] Last Things [ Ta Eschata ], is shown in the very title, by the treati treatise se [Immanu [Immanuel el Kant's Kant's own Treatise reatise on] The Victory of the Good
Principle Principle over the Evil and the Establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth (1792); we see at once that the language is the language of theology. But what is the content of this [specious] pronouncement framed in theological terms? What does Kant understand by the “establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth”? The answer [Kant's own answer] is: “The gradual transition from ecclesiastical creed to the absolute sovereignty of pure [sic] religious faith is the approach of the Kingdom of God.”....Ecclesiastical creed means the faith lived in the cultus , the faith grounded on revelation, which treats of a history of salvation. salvation. And “pure religious faith”? faith”? This is the bare faith in Reason, Reason, which, stripped of the cultus [hence of the public worship, such as the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Catholic Mass], is no more than [putative] morality....The positively political character of this [Kantian] pronouncement, only slightly camouflaged because of the danger into which it might have placed the author, can be understood when one reflects that it was written with the French Revolution in view [i.e., one of those “revolutions,” he had earlier said, “which may may shor shorte ten n this this progress” from from “ecc “eccle lesi sias asti tica call creed creed”” to “the “the fait faith h in Reason”]....The believer cannot help being shocked as he [herein] watches [as also in the sly language of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (d. 1778)] a fundamental concept of New Testament revelation being debased and inverted before his eyes into a crudely rationalistic formulation; moreover, even the non-believer of a later generation will look back in surprise at this shallow and over-hasty 2
misinterpretation of the enigma [the mysterium ] of history.” (Josef Pieper, The End of Time Time, pp. 95-97) ***
Almost Almost fifte fifteen en years years before before the farsig farsighted hted James James Burnha Burnham m first first publis published hed his secular secular,, empirical-analytical study, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (1964),1 Josef Pieper published his own quite challenging, philosophical-theological study, Über das (About ut the the End End of Time: ime: A Ende der Zeit: Eine geschichtsphilosop geschichtsphilosophische hische Betrachtung Betrachtung (1950)2 (Abo Meditation on the Philosophy of History). The former book includes a reasoned prediction as to where the “inner logic” of Liberalism's own fundamental premises leads, especially its disintegrating effects on Western Civilization; and, therefore, Burnham also proposes his own modest kind of empirical prediction and “projection” of the Liberal Ideology's likely temporal fruits: namely, namely, that form of disciplined and differentiated extrapolation called “prognostication” (or prognosis). However, the latter study by Josef Pieper goes further. further. For Dr. Pieper also includes in his h is close study a nuanced consideration of the even greater intellectual and moral burden of “prophecy.” That is to say, divine prophecy, in its strict sense, as distinct from mere human prognostication: i.e., especially as to the nature and onerous moral consequences of a truly believed Divine Prophecy about specific “future contingents,” such as “the coming of the Messiah.” For, the earlier, pre-Christian “Messianic Prophecies” in the Old Testament became increasingly specific, so as to include the depiction of the coming Messiah, not just as a Ruler, but also as a “Suffering Servant.” Moreover, in light of the fuller sacred corpus of both Jewish and Christian Revelation, Josef Pieper then gives us a further challenge, which is also a vividly burdensome test of our courage and of our perduring loyalty to Christ, especially as his meditation presents to us the as-yet-unfulfilled (still historical prophecy prophecy concerning the end and final meaning of history, specifically in remaining) historical the end end of time time” itself rela relati tion on to “the itself.. Thus, Thus, to includ includee the formid formidabl ablee prepar preparato atory ry events events of the 1 James ames Burnh urnhaam, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1964), 306 pages. In 1975, the book was re-published by Arlington Arlington House, but the only changes Burnham then made, in light of the events of the previous ten years, was an illuminating “Afterword” “Afterword” from pages 313320. 2 A third third edition of Josef Pieper's Pieper's original 1950 book was published published in German in Munich in 1980, also by Kösel Verlag. Verlag.
3
Antichrist's historical precursors and, finally, the explicitly foretold “Dominion of the Antichrist,” as such: a seductive dominion which will cruelly confront and acutely persecute the Catholic Church near the end of time. But, are we convinced of that? Over the twenty years I was privileged to know him, Father John A. Hardon, S.J. often said— both in private and in public, p ublic, and usually with his special accent and his solemn intonation added—that added— that “We are only as courageous as we are convinced.” The implication was clear. But what, indeed, are
we now (or not yet) truly convinced of? o f? What abiding convictions do we deeply hold and cherish? Do we believe, believe, for example, in the traditional traditional “historical “historical prophecy” of the coming Ecclesia
Martyrum (Church of the Martyrs) at the end of time as a formative part of Divine Revelation and of the purposive culmination of history “when time shall be no more”? (Book XI of Saint Augustine's
Confessions will certainly introduce us to the Mystery of Time!) Although it is not so widely known in these times, the Catholic Church's highly differentiated, and fuller doctrinal tradition concerning the End of Time will propose a further challenge of the Faith—
i.e., to be more deeply understood in its gradually unveiled twofold meaning of the “end” (Latin “ Finis”): both in its sense as an intra-historical conclusion (or mysterious termination) of time; and in its sense as the higher, purposive goal (or intended completion) of time (God's created Time). The concept and reality of the End of history history (and Time) will certainly certainly challenge our intellect intellect and test our loyalty to Christ and His Church, especially during that foretold event of the Ecclesia Ecclesia Martyrum and its inescapable “Blood Witness.” Witness.”
i.e., Indeed, our convictions about this whole momentous matter of “the outcome of history”— i.e “the “the questi question on of what what the histor historica icall proces processs is 'leadin 'leading g up to'” to'”3 —should certainly prepare us for courage, and perhaps even for that form of fortitude as it was shown in the “blood testimony” of the Christian Martyrs of earlier history, whose invariant witness, amidst unmistakably acute concentrations of evil, nevertheless never displayed contempt for the essential goodness of the Divine Creation itself. Even though we may not be called to such a blood witness, the hope of the Christian martyrs should be
Timoris), as a reliable guard against the sin of our abiding standard—also, like the gift of fear ( Donum Timoris 3 Jose osef Pie Piepe perr, The End of Time: Time: A Meditation on the Philosophy of History (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), p. 12.
4
presumption, itself being one of the two sins against hope, indeed one of “the two forms of hopelessness” (the other, more well known, being the sin of despair). In any case, says Pieper, with his characteristic sense of adventure and wonder: For the man who is spiritually existent, who is directed upon the whole of reality, in other words, for the man who philosophizes, this question of the end of history is, quite naturally, more pressing than the question of “what actually happened.”4 Later Later in his medit meditati ation, on, Josef Josef Pieper Pieper once once again again expres expressed sed this this combin combined ed and resili resilient ent disposition of heart with lucid incisiveness, even as he would then also prepare us to be faithful members of that Ecclesia Ecclesia Martyrum (if it be God's will): The Christian attitude to history contains both the affirmation of creation and readiness for blood-testimony; only the man who combines in himself himself this affirmation and this readiness will retain the possibility of historical activity activity [e.g., moral moral resist resistance ance to the evils evils of injust injustice ice,, or his missionar missionary y generosity and sacrificial works of mercy], arising out of a genuine impulse, even in the midst of the catastrophe [i.e., even amidst the prophesied cruelty, dece deceit itfu full prop propag agan anda da,, and and espe especi cial ally ly sedu seduct ctiv ivee “pse “pseud udoo-or orde derr of the the even in the down downfa falll of the wit witness ness to trut ruth [as Antichrist”]....even [as this this “fund “fundam amen enta tall form form”” of appar apparent ent fail failur uree was was also also once once to be seen seen in the the 5 perceptibly ignominious case of the dead Christ Himself Himself on Calvary]. For, Pieper adds, the Church's doctrinal “tradition” fully and vividly expects, near the end of time (within history), “ the extreme intensification of the mendacity and sham-sanctity which, in general, [will also] characterize the Antichrist.” Antichrist.”6
4 Ibid .—italics .—italics in the original 5 Jose osef Pie Piepe perr, The End of Time: Time: A Meditation on the Philosophy of History (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), pp. 149-150—my emphasis added. Josef Pieper's study, originally in German, was, significantly, significantly, first published in English in 1954, by Pantheon Books, Inc., in New York—an York—an excellent publishing house, and very important in our literary history. 6 Ibid., p. 138—my emphasis added. Such mendacity and sham-sanctity sham-sanctity (with seeming piety) will also thereby intensify the intimate breaking of human trust. But the faithful Christian is still commissioned to persevere and to “survive” these grave trials as they are foretold for the end of time and history—a special additional burden of historical prophecy which is, as of yet, still unfulfilled; and that direly promised, event-sequence to come and manifest itself near the end of created time is itself for man also intrinsically undatable (except for the knowledge and illumination of God the Father in Heaven, according to the Church's doctrinal tradition, and in light of Christ's own explicit words in the Gospel).
5
Josef Pieper had earlier said, with some additional details and vivid specificity, specificity, as follows: Theref Therefore ore,, despit despitee the fact fact that the Christ Christian' ian'ss attitu attitude de to histor history y include includess preparation for a catastrophic end within history, it nevertheless contains as an inalienable element the affirmation [of the intrinsic goodness] of created reality. reality. To create a vital link between these seeming irreconcilables is a task that challenges the courage of the most valiant of hearts, precisely in times when the temptation to despair is strong. Thus it is a distinguishing mark of the Christian martyr that in him “no word is raised against God's creation.” This, says says Erik Erik Pete Peters rson on,, who who has form formul ulat ated ed this this wonde wonderf rful ul insi insigh ghtt in his his interpretation of the [New Testament Book of] Apocalypse [in his book, Zeuge —Witness to Truth]—this is something which distinguishes the der Wahrheit —Witness Christian martyr [ i.e., in contradistinction to the Gnostic]: He [the Christian martyr] does not revile natural mundane reality; he finds creation, in spite of everything, everything, “very good” [i.e., “valde bona ”—the specific Latin Vulgate words from the Book of Genesis itself]; whereas it is characteristic of the gnostic [such as Old-Testament-Rejecting Marcionite Gnostic], who shuns the bloodtestimony, that he speaks ill of creation and of natural things. And the Antichrist, too, is hostile to creation.7 It is my contention, furthermore, that a more adequate understanding of the Church's fuller doctrinal tradition about the end of time (and history) will help us to transcend—as well as to be more attentive to—“the inadequacy of the concepts of optimism and pessimism” and to the comparably shallow (and potentially misleading) categories of “Liberal” and “Conservative,” especially given their frequently mutable and equivocal definitions. In any case, we should at least ask of any professed Liberal what he is seeking “freedom from” and what he is seeking “freedom for,” and on what grounds and by what authority. Correlatively, we should ask a professed Conservative what he is trying to conserve and why and for how long does he propose to do that, and according to what specific criteria and standards of faithful preservation, and by what authority. We may aid our applicable understanding here by attempting to be especially specific about these inherently relational words—Liberal (or 7 Ibid., pp. 148-149—italics in the original text; my bold emphases added. In his own grateful reference to Erik Peterson, moreover, moreover, Josef Pieper cites pages 52 and 91 from Peterson's own original German text, Zeuge der Wahrheit Wahrheit .
6
“Progressive”) and Conservative (or “Reactionary”)—and, thus, concentrate first on the context, and then on “what these terms are, therein, very specifically related to.” Lest the vagueness of discourse thereby become both “a lure and a trap.” And a distracting “false dialectic”! Because of the differentiate differentiated d and highly interwoven interwoven strands of traditional traditional doctrine doctrine about the End of Time and the abiding burden and challenge of these teachings and reflections in their inspiring integrity integrity,, Josef Pieper's own carefully carefully crafted crafted words about philosophy— philosophy—specif specificall ically y in its relation to theology—are important for us now to consider. Recalling first what he had earlier only briefly presented, Dr. Dr. Pieper now elucidates his fuller meaning, and in the form of a correlative, relative proposition (“the more..., the more...”): It has already been mentioned that the more a philosophic inquiry relates to history, the more the inquirer needs to return to theology. In addition, the more closely a concept in theology is related to the [Four] Last Things, to the realization of the meaning of history, to the End, the more the totality of theological concepts comes into play. With respect to our theme, this means that a correct interpretation of the concept “Dominion of Antichrist” [and of Antich Antichris rist's t's “Precu “Precurso rsors rs”” or Foreru Forerunne nners] rs] presup presuppos poses es that that all the basic basic concepts of theology, or rather all the fundamental realities of the history of salvation, are correctly understood.8 At the very beginning of his inquiry about the End of History and the End of Time, Josef Pieper characteristically speaks of the inclusive attentiveness and receptivity of philosophy itself, and especially of the one who truly philosophizes, saying that “he who philosophizes ...means any man who meditates upon the roots of things and lovingly seeks wisdom!”9
“The question of the outcome of history”—the question of what history is leading up to, namely, its “issue” or particular “end-state” of “perfection or impoverishment” 10 —becomes “operative “ operative on a widening front” and attains “an all the more painful topicality the more the historical happening [e.g ., . , war war or pest pestil ilen ence, ce, or the the deat death h of the the belov beloved ed]] shak shakes es man' man'ss foun foundat datio ions ns.” .”11 By way of illustration, speaking of the aftermath of World World War II and the resort to Atomic Weapons, Weapons, Pieper adds: 8 Ibid., pp. 121-122. 9 Ibid ., ., p. 11—my emphasis added. Analogously, Analogously, a guiding priest once memorably invited us in his Ignatian Retreat during Holy Week “to contemplate with love the Passion of the Lord.” Seeking wisdom thereby. 10 Ibid ., ., pp. 15 and 14. 11 Ibid ., ., p. 12—my emphasis added.
7
Everyone is aware of the extent to which [even in 1950] the question of the end of history is today exercising the minds of men. This results in a multiplicity of aborti abortive ve answer answers, s, which which win equall equally y premat premature ure approbat approbation ion and suppor supportt [similar, perhaps, to the exegetical theories of the “end times” and the “rapture” and other opinions of the Evangelical and self-professed Protestant “Christian Zionists” today?]—all of which in conjunction leads to those particular [and political!] forms of sectarian apocalyptic which must be regarded as typical “phenomena of the age,” whose pronouncements are, for the most part, beyond discussion but which must undoubtedly be taken seriously as a symptom. We shall do well to oppose to this kind of overheated interest in “eschatological” especi cial ally ly high high meas measur uree of sobr sobrie iety ty and and [disciplined] questions an espe exactitude....And the question may [also] be asked whether a connection does not exist between the absence of a genuine association of inquiry in the philosophy of history with true theology, that is to say the absence of a genuine philosophy of history [properly open to sound theology]...on the one hand, and, on the other [hand], the unrestrained proliferation of Utopianmillenarian expectations of intra-historical salvation.... salvation....12
In contradistinction to this proposed “immanentism,” the sacred doctrinal traditions of the Catholic Church have always been “a-millennialist” (or “non-chiliastic”), despite the hints that an early Church Father (Saint Irenaeus)—the Irenaeus)—the only one—might one—might well have himself believed in a Millennium: Millennium: a thousand years when Christ would actually reign in person in temporal history (intra-historically). Given the Church's predominant (though not yet dogmatically defined) orientation toward the end of time and history, a responsible and faithful Catholic is fearfully aware of his personal responsibility and risk in the challenge and adventure of the Faith, and he strives for that abiding “openness in hope”—the theolo theologic gical al virtue virtue which which is able able to bear the abidin abiding g “existe “existenti ntial al tensio tension n betwee between n humili humility ty and magnanimity,” and which is, therefore, neither despair, nor presumption (i.e., neither “the premature anticipation of final non-fulfillment” nor “the premature anticipation of final fulfillment” in Eternal life, in Josef Pieper's own memorable words to me once). Such a faithful Catholic, knowing well the intrinsic moral burden of his free will, is acutely (but trustfully) aware that, until the moment of his death, he retains “the permanent possibility of his voluntary defection” from God and His Grace.
Timoris), that he not be finally separated Hence, his recurrent prayer for the Gift of Fear (the Donum Timoris from the Beloved. Such is the risk, such is the adventure, such is love and prerequisite self-sacrifice. 12 Ibid ., ., pp. 12 and 28—my emphasis added.
8
When Josef Pieper speaks of philosophy's fitting openness to theology—at least as it has been “true of the Christian aeon, of the period [after the Incarnation and His Nativity, thus,] post Christum
natum”— it it must incorporate the data of accessible Christian Revelation, to include the matter of reliable (though mysterious) prophecy, and always with one overarching purpose: the purpose of
sub Gratia) a faithful Christian's combined “readiness for the blood testimony fostering, under Grace ( sub and affirmation of created reality,” that he may truly “survive the end of time” and, with gratitude, enter Vita Aeterna . To instruct us further, speaking likewise of the formidable challenge of tradition, Pieper says: If, in this discussion, I constantly refer to the pronouncements of Christian theology, the only genuine theology to be encountered at all in the European quarter of the globe [at least as of 1950, or even in 1980]....I do so because philosophical al character character and would otherw otherwise ise the inquir inquiry y would would lose lose its philosophic would simply no longer be worthwhile....The primary thing, which is presupposed by believed to have theology, is a body of traditional pronouncements which are believed been revealed, not to have come into being through human interpretation of reality....Now theology is the human endeavor to interpret this body of tradition out of itself by ordering it and weighing it....[Thus, his own footnote, namely:] In this connection it must be noted that theology in this sense is scarcely possible without a genuinely philosophical attitude (and to some extent, also, without philosophical training). This does not imply primarily that particular philosophical concepts and terms (e.g ., ., substance-a substance-accident ccident)) are necessary necessary to the pronouncement pronouncement of a particular content content of revelation revelation (e.g ., ., the import of the doctri doctrine ne of transu transubst bstant antiat iation ion). ). What What is meant meant is that the import the pronouncement of revelation as a whole becomes intelligible to the interpreter — i.e theologian—in the act of spiritual spiritual appropriation appropriation only if his gaze is i.e., the theologian—in already focused upon, and ready for, the dimension “roots of things,” [and] “ultimate reality.”13 Therefore, before his important and differentiated discussion of prophecy, in contrast to the extrapolations of prognostication, Josef Pieper would further assure us that his own interpretive thought presupposes both the primary thing, the tradition assumed in faith to be revealed [the Depositum Depositum Fidei], as well as the seco econdary ary thin hing, the theologic gical interpretation of this body of tradition. I refer to the interpretation of the pronouncement of revelation set down in theological writings—which 13 Ibid ., ., pp. 29-30—my emphasis added.
9
[interpretation, “hermeneutic”] can, of course be done in earnest [and with integrity!] only if this pronouncement anterior to theology is accepted as valid, in other words, if it is “believed .”14 He adds one more clarification to convince us, implicitly, of the integrity of his own approach: Philos Philosophi ophizing zing does not become become intell intellect ectual ually ly easier easier by referr referring ing back back to theology; to be sure, reference back to a true theology in philosophy renders the natu naturre of reali ealitty mor more deep deeply ly acce accesssible ible,, but but at the same ame tim time its its mysteriousness becomes more compellingly manifest; the greater the extent to which knowledge discloses being, the more profoundly does the mystery of the existent unveil itself within it [ i.e., within “being”—“intelligible, knowable, but final finally ly unfa unfath thom omab able le”” to our fini finitu tude de]. ]. This This trut truth, h, howeve howeverr, whic which h is charact characteri eristi sticc of all philos philosoph ophy y as a whole whole [its [its “myster “mysteriou iousne sness” ss”], ], applies applies 15 “above all” to the philosophy of history. Jose Joseff Piep Pieper er will will now now make make it even even more more diff diffic icul ultt for for hims himsel elf, f, but he then then makes makes his his fundamental distinctions clearer and even more persuasive and indeed convincing: A Christia Christian n philos philosophy ophy,, which which derive derivess all the evil evil in the world from from the revealed fact of original sin [and demonic agency?], may now suppose for an instant that things have become “more plausible” and “simpler.” Yet to the vision that penetrates deeper, this proves to be an illusion—notwithstanding the fact that this derivation derivation [from the fact of original sin], because it is true, power to disclo disclose se realit reality y than stand standss infi infinit nitel ely y high higher er in its its power than all all other other derivations (such as from an original evil principle operating beside God, or from a tragic contradiction within God himself [recalling Hegel's unfolding, evolutionary Geist and the the earli earlier er and and late laterr Herm Hermet etic ic,, or Kabb Kabbal alis isti tic, c, Ontological Dialectic itself]). Within original sin, however, a new mystery become becomess manife manifest st, much uch mor more enig enigm mati atic and and impe impene netr trab ablle than than the the empirically encounterable evil in the world. Or, the “enlightened” philosophy of progress [as in I. Kant] is just as simple as the philosophy of despair of radical pessimism, which foresees the end of history as [mere] decay, chaos, self-destruction, non-fulfillment. A philosophy of history dealing with the end, however, which refers back to the pronouncement of the Apocalypse that in the last days the Antichrist will establish a world dominion of evil, and which nevertheless will not and cannot be a philosophy of despair —of such a philosophy of history no one will expect an intellectually simple view of history. It may perhaps be said that a philosophy of history which is in this sense Christian constitutes the most intellectually arduous task that can be 14 Ibid ., ., p. 30—my emphasis added. 15 Ibid ., ., p. 31.
10
set in the whole domain of philosophy.16
Dr. Pieper had said that “The question of the man who philosophizes about history, that is, of the man who looks at the whole and at the roots of things , runs: What is it that really takes place
there?”17 Answering his own question, he says that it is not “the disintegration of culture,” nor “the rise of world empire,” nor that “economic development comes about” nor that “a class conflict is enacted”; but, rather: What really and in the deepest analysis happens in history is salvation and disaster. Thes like the the mome moment ntous ous,, rela relate ted d These, e, however, are are conc concep epts ts [like “decision for or against Christ”] that can be apprehended only on the basis of revelation—although, on the other hand, they are certainly not concepts which the human spirit could abstain from thinking [as man's “anxiety dreams” often fearfully and convincingly show, indeed, “the man who has lost his salvation”]. He who philosophizes cannot ignore salvation and disaster, this core of history which is accessible only to the believer — unless unless he ignores that at which philosophical inquiry is aimed per definitionem ....[For] the claim of the philosophy of history to be aimed at the whole and at the foundations can no more be sustained if the concepts of salvation and disaster [final loss, final futili futility] ty] are excluded excluded than can the vitall vitally y existi existing, ng, histor historica icall lly y active active and this core core of all happening happening to a “merely” passive man “withdraw” from this whether we will it or not, economic or political or scientific activity (for— whether whet whether her we see see it or not —it —it is our very own salvation or disaster that “actually” comes to pass in history.) One can, of course, refuse to see history in this light at all; in that case, no further argument is possible. 18
For sure, sure, althoug although h “one “one may intend intend to operate operate exclusi exclusivel vely y with with psychol psychologic ogico-p o-poli olitic ticoosociological categories in the consideration of history,” but “the crux of the matter, the real core of the process [the “historical process”] will will not be attained after such a fashion”; indeed: indeed: We are moving within the realm of the mysterious —in the strictest sense. And even for the [Christian] believer, the history of salvation “within” history is not to be apprehended concretely....Nonetheless,...it should be considered and recognized recognized that the true and ultimate reality in the happening of history, though it cannot be apprehended in detail, is the mysterium of salvation and disaster — This This is...why precisely in questions of the philosophy of history the adoption [the affirmation!] of ultimate positions cannot be left aside.19 16 Ibid., pp. 31-32—my emphasis added. 17 Ibid ., ., p. 20—my emphasis added. 18 Ibid ., ., pp. 20-21—italics in the original; my bold emphasis added. 19 Ibid ., ., pp. 22-23—italics in the original, my bold emphasis added.
11
Josef Pieper will, very importantly, now introduce us to the matter of “prophecy and history,” inasmuch as “the fact that the theological pronouncement to which this inquiry has, above all, to refer [i.e., “the end of time”] is made in the guise of prophecy;” and, unmistakably, “there exists an inner coordination of history with prophecy.”20 For, it is true that not ever everyt ythi hing ng that that happ happen enss is “Histo “History” ry” involv involves es “happen “happening” ing”;; but not “history.” The flash of lightening, the fall of a stone, the flowing of water—all this is unhistorical happening....The history of man—this is rather the unique commingling of free decision and fate; the encounters which fall to his lot in this unrepeatable moment of life; man's “path,” insofar as it is determined by his particular response to what destiny causes to befall him (whether this is a beloved person, a teacher, [a mentor!], an antagonist or the gain or loss of possessions, health, beauty, beauty, or the innate gift of aptitudes, temperament, “constitution.”) The concepts associated with the essential nature of history are freed freedom om,, decis decisio ion, n, uniqu uniquene eness ss,, unre unrepe peat atabi abili lity ty,, un-i un-int nter ercha chang ngeab eabil ilit ity y, unpred unpredict ictable able capacit capacity y for variat variation ion,, the indivi individua dually lly solita solitary; ry; by these, these, historical historical happening happening is distin distingui guishe shed d from from the unhisto unhistori rical cal happeni happening ng of nature [the germinating plant or the life-cycle of an animal, for example]. Because this is so, however, because history is not simply the “unfolding” [or “dia “diale lect ctic ical al evol evolut utio ion” n”]] of some someth thin ing g previ previou ousl sly y given given that that was was not not yet yet unfold unfolded, ed, because because it is not simply simply “develo “developmen pment”— t”—for for this this reason reason,, in the sphere of history the concretely future cannot be calculated in advance, neither prophecy. Prophecy is the sole by the stars nor by statistics. But there may be prophecy form of prediction coordinated with the essence of history ....so it is part of the concept of prophecy to be a prediction that does not require any foothold in experience [in “the fund of experience (that is, from the past)”].21
20 Ibid ., ., p. 32. 21 Ibid ., ., pp. 32-34—italics in the original, my bold emphasis added.
12
Moreover, the “full concept of prophecy” includes another important element: It is not some indifferent aspect of the future which is foretold [in prophecy], but an event related to the inmost kernel of history, to the realization of salvation or disaster; it is one of the conceptual elements of prophecy that it has its place in the history of salvation .22
It seems to me important to sharpen our understanding of the concept and reality of prophecy, by contrasting it with “prognosis” or “prognostication,” and Dr. Pieper is especially profound here, also with his illustrative examples: prognosis that it stands on “footholds” in the It is essential to the concept of prognosis present; indeed, the art of prognosis consists in discovering in the fund of experience itself pointers to the future, which is concealed in the present. This distinguishes prognosis from prophecy; as does the other fact, that prognosis necessarily proceeds toward the probable....It could, of course, have been stated in the summer of 1944 [during World War II], on the basis of statistics, how many fatal accidents there would be in the city of Danzig in 1945—provided that the city of Danzig existed and that [under the bombing] there was still “traffic” there at all. That this condition would not hold good, however—this could not be be predicted on the basis of statistics....The truly historical event, concrete in every respect (when? where? who?), cannot be foreseen at all in prognostication. The claim of prophecy, however, is aimed at precisely this.23
Before considering the even greater burden of the as yet unfulfilled prophecies about the end of time, Josef Pieper has us freshly consider “the model of all prophecy”: namely, “the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament,” Testament,” for those prophecies, in their incremental incremental specificity, specificity, still altogether Foretell the passion of the Servant of God—an occurrence which could not have been predicted by any sort of calculation, a fact for which no expectation could be found in the concerns of history available to experience, an event in the highest sense historical, grounded on an unconstrained and absolutely free “Yea.” Because prophecy relates to what is in the strictest sense historical, it is therefore of its essence that it brings to view, not a result arising out of the interpretive penetration of what can be experienced, but something known by 22 Ibid ., ., p. 34—my emphasis added. 23 Ibid ., ., pp. 34-35—italics in the original, my bold emphasis added.
13
revelation, a “vision,” the announcement of something [important to salvation] pertaining to the indeterminate future. future.24
Moreover, when one is “inquiring after the end of time in terms of the philosophy of history,” the situation becomes even more complicated, because “prophecy that is not yet 'fulfilled'” is now involved and thus constitutes an added “scandal” (as in Matthew 11:6) for “the natural man” in the face of a “still 'unconfirmed'” and purportedly “revealed [theological] announcement” and “prediction” that “comes to us 'from without' [as a gift desursum descendens , or as in a deeper Grace itself] with a claim to absolute truth, at which human cognitive power [, moreover,] could never have arrived of itself.”25 Unlike “an already 'concluded' revelation”—as the Catholic Faith believes to be so in the case of Isaiah's Messianic Prophecies, for example—and one which has also now been “fashioned into the accepted property of tradition by centuries of theological interpretation,” becoming thereby, as it were, “historically legitimized” and thus also “seems to be something less scandalous and aggressive”—a “not yet 'fulfilled'” prophecy still calls to our reflective mind (and the moral imagination) the originally “scandalous character of the [original Messianic] revelation, its incommensurability with the spheres both of nature and of culture.”26 But, in any case, one need not make such a strenuous “act of refl reflec ecti tion” on” and “syn “synchr chron onou ous” s” mora morall imag imagin inat atio ion n when when faced faced with with the the star stark k fact fact of “a stil stilll 'unconfirmed' prophecy”—that is, “provided that its claim to be [true] revelation is taken seriously.”27 Josef Pieper now concentrates on the stern challenge of such a still “unconfirmed” historical prophecy, and, in support of his insights, he also calls to mind the acute nineteenth-century nine teenth-century reflections of John Henry Newman himself: A prophecy whose absolute claim is accepted [in faith], a prophecy relating to our own future that has not yet happened (that which is truly ours is the future tense of the exist existent ential ial, where —the future tense is the tense whereas as the the past past [for [for example, the rooted belief that “the Incarnation happened,” “the Resurrection, too”] is of existential consequence only insofar as the future is rooted in it)— 24 Ibid ., ., p. 35. 25 Ibid ., ., p. 36. 26 Ibid ., ., pp. 36-37. 27 Ibid ., ., pp. 37-38—my emphasis added.
14
a prophecy relating [also] to our own future is ipso facto and in every case a challenge and a “scandal”—“How differently the Apocalypse affects us from the [Messianic] predictions of Isaiah!”—it is John Henry Newman [from his Gramma marr of Asse Assent nt ] who 1870 1870 book, book, Gram who pond ponder erss this his ques questi tion on:: and and he simultaneously proposes to explain the attitude of the Jews at the turn of the ages toward the Messianic prophecies “by our own [attitude], at present [in 1870], towards the Apocalypse”....Suffice it for now that it has become clear that the scandalousness, the incommensurable element in revelation as a whole is naturally naturally most sharply defined in the prophecy which refers to the future of the people living at any given time.28 Returning to the very nature of all prophecy, Dr. Pieper adds some further clarifications, for It is of the essence of prophecy that it can be understood only to the extent to which it is being fulfilled—and even then only to the believer [the convinced believer!]. It is hardly ha rdly necessary to say how greatly this fact also complicates, distinctively, inquiry in the philosophy of history about the end of time. The attitude of the Jews to the Messianic prophecies, of which Newman speaks, is something very remarkable: They did not recognize or accept the fulfillment of the prophecies, although they believed, that is to say, say, although they accepted the claim of the prophecies [themselves] to be Divine Revelation.29 In contrast to the earnest Jews who “believingly accepted” the reality of such Messianic prophecy as trustworthy Divine Revelation, let us contrast the more natural attitude of the formatively cultured, governing pagan Romans of that time—and then try to put ourselves in their places today, but now with specific reference to “the more obscure, end-time prophecies”: If a historically educated Roman on the staff of Pontius Pilate, well acquainted with the scriptures of this singular and, from a religious-historical point of view, very interesting people, the Jews, and familiar with all these prophecies, but obviously not accepting them as being in any way the word of God — if if this Roman, despite his wide knowledge, had failed to perceive the fulfillment of the prophecies taking place before his eyes, this would have been entirely natural. This would have been just as natural as that [today] a radically secularized mankind, with an élite élite committed committed to a rationalis rationalistic tic theory of utterl erly y incapab incapable le of recogn recognizi izing ng the fulfil fulfillme lment nt of the societ society y, will will be utt since the latter will not be believingly accepted—but, Apocalyptic prophecy— since on the contrary, will rather interpret the [Apocalyptic] events as the realization 28 Ibid ., ., p. 37—my emphasis added. Josef Pieper is quoting from a later edition of J.H. Newman's 1870 text, Grammar of Assent (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930), p. 446. 29 Ibid ., ., p. 38—italics in the original, my bold emphasis added. Pieper then argues that, in this remarkable response by the Jews, “we seem to have something paradigmatic, something typical of the understanding of prophecies in general.” (38)
15
of a stupendous advance [“progress”] on the part of mankind—that this [too] will be so is itself part of the Apocalyptic Apocalyptic prophecy! prophecy! All this is natural.... natural....But the believer may himself also mistake that—as the case of the Jews shows— the 30 the meaning of the prophecy.... This is certainly a humbling insight, and an aid in overcoming our complacency—and also our presumption and spiritual sloth. This truth goes far beyond the matter of “Liberal” “Liberal” and “Conservative.” Since Since this this “proble “problem” m” of a believ believer' er'ss culpab culpabili ility ty (negli (negligenc gence), e), or even his sincer sincerity ity,, in mistaking “the meaning of prophecy” has, indeed, “many levels,” Josef Pieper now proposes to go a
little deeper still, also concurrently adding to our rational fears, if not yet to our faithful convictions: It is true that prophecy, like all revelation, can be intentionally rejected. And since the predictive meaning of prophecy is only unveiled little by little , explic explicit, it, intenti intentional onal approb approbati ation on [“aff [“affirm irmati ation” on”]] is invited and becomes possible only in the same measure, little by little , approbation as well as nonapprobation, the Yea as well as the Nay—so that once-and-for-all approbation would be neither possible nor sufficient, by virtue of the very nature of the [gradually unveiling and incrementally self-manifesting] matter. The “great apostasy” resulting from the events of the Apocalypse itself, and what is more, as the theological interpretation states, the apostasy of believers , which is explicitly foretold, is accordingly contained as a possibility in principle in the essence of the prophecy. prophecy.31 This certainly invites an ongoing prayer for the Holy Ghost's gift of fear ( Donum Timoris), both as a precaution against the lax vice (and prideful sin) of presumption, and as an aid to the virtue of hope. (For, hope is only a virtue when it is a theological virtue, infused in the Ordo Gratiae .) And, in this context, we might now also further reflect on the Lord's lengthy (and His own self-explicated) Parable Parable of the Sower—and Sower—and its meaning meaning about the disciplined, disciplined, gradual, gradual, perceptive, perceptive, and finally finally fruitful cultivation of the soul, as well as the soil. It certainly suggests that we must either continually grow in our understanding of our Faith, or lose it. (It is another aspect of “Credo ut intelligam .”) In addition to the gift of fear, it is fitting also to pray faithfully and abidingly for “the Gift of Final Perseverance,” which is an additionally undeserved “Great Gift” (a “ Magnum Donum Donum”), as it was so design designate ated d in the doctri doctrinall nally y explic explicit it words words of the Council Council of Trent Trent itself itself.. We are certai certainly nly 30 Ibid ., ., pp. 38-39—my emphasis added. 31 Ibid ., ., p. 39—italics in the original, my bold emphasis added.
16
encouraged to live and die gratefully and “supernaturally alive”—that is, to be and to remain in the state of sanctifying grace. And that we may, moreover, help others to do the same, not only those, such as our children, whom we more proximately and intimately love. (For just as the soul, the Anima, is the principle of natural life, sanctifying grace is the principle of supernatural life.) Salvation is a “social process” and we shall be finally judged judge d by our acts of practical charity, charity, thus especially by how many souls we sincerely ( sine dolo, “without guile”) help get to heaven. (Yet, (Yet, as we may now agree, the irreducibly remains as to the Book of Apocalypse's Apocalypse's own specific specific meaning concerning Mysterium also irreducibly the final coming of “the New Heaven and the New Earth.”) We offer these added insights, deriving from our beloved Catholic Faith, on the premise that at the core of history history, finally, is “the decision for or against Christ”—and the Church He founded. If
we have a believing acceptance of this still contested proposition, it should further challenge and
Gratia, unto our own final loyalty: our own prepared for and trustful “readiness for the motivate us, sub Gratia blood testimony and the affirmation of created reality”; that is to say, say, “both the affirmation of creation and the readiness for blood-testimony,” blood-testimony,”32 because of our grateful love for Christ, to the end.
--Finis--
© 2013 Robert D. Hickson
32 Ibid ., ., p. 149—my emphasis added. The momentous, ultimate matter of “salvation or disaster,” disaster,” also goes far beyond the categories of “Liberal” and “Conservative.” “Conservative.”
17
