Comment:
"I do not know what Confucius would have done with the Bambino, had it come to life in his arms as it did in the arms of St. Francis." GKC
Monday, 05 January 2015
Monday after Epiphany
First Reading
Isaiah 61:1-11
Responsory Is 61:1; In 8:42
The Spirit of God rests upon me, for the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, + to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim that captivity is now ended and prisoners are set free.
V. I have come forth from God and have come into the world. I did not come of myself; the Father has sent me. + To heal the ...
Second Reading
From the writings of G.K. Chesterton
(The Everlasting Man Part II, chapter 1)
(The Everlasting Man Part II, chapter 1)
Many notes at Christmas
It is still a
strange story, though an old one, how the wise men came out of orient lands,
crowned with the majesty of kings and clothed with something of the mystery of
magicians. That truth that is tradition has wisely remembered them almost as
unknown quantities, as mysterious as their mysterious and melodious names: Melchior,
Caspar, Balthazar. But there came with them all that world of wisdom that had
watched the stars in Chaldea and the sun in Persia; and we shall not be wrong
if we see in them the same curiosity that-moves all the sages. They would stand
for the same human ideal if their names had really been Confucius or Pythagoras
or Plato. They were those who sought not tales but the truth of things; and
since their thirst for truth was itself a thirst for God, they also have had
their reward. But even in order to understand that reward, we must understand
that for philosophy as much as mythology, that reward was the completion of the
incomplete.
Such learned men
would doubtless have come, as these learned men did come, to find themselves
confirmed in much that was true in their own traditions and right in their own
reasoning. Confucius would have found a new foundation for the family in the very
reversal of the Holy Family; Buddha would have looked upon a new renunciation, of
stars rather than jewels and divinity than royalty. These learned men would still
have the right to say, or rather a new right to say, that there was truth in their
old teaching. But, after all, these learned men would have come to learn. They
would have come to complete their conception with something they had not yet conceived;
even to balance their imperfect universe with something they might once have contradicted.
Buddha would have come from his impersonal paradise to worship a person. Confucius
would have come from his temples of ancestor-worship to worship a child.
The magi, who
stand for mysticism and philosophy, are truly conceived as seeking something new
and even as finding something unexpected. That tense sense of crisis which
still tingles in the Christmas story accentuates the idea of a search and a discovery.
For the other mystical figures in the miracle play, for the angel and the mother,
the shepherds and the soldiers of Herod, there may be aspects both simpler and
more supernatural, more elemental and more emotional. But the wise men must be seeking
wisdom; and for them there must be a light also in the intellect. For it is the
paradox of that group in the cave, that while our emotions about it are of childish
simplicity, our thoughts about it can branch with a neverending complexity.
The unique note of
Christmas is the simultaneous striking of many notes: of humility, of gaiety,
of gratitude, of mystical fear, but also of vigilance and of drama. By the very
nature of the story the rejoicings in the cavern were rejoicings in a fortress
or an outlaw's den; properly understood it is not unduly flippant to say they were
rejoicings in a dugout. It is not only true that such a subterranean chamber
was a hiding-place from enemies, and that the enemies were already scouring the
stony plain that lay above it like a sky. It is not only true that the very horse-hoofs
of Herod might have passed like thunder over the sunken head of Christ. It is
also that there is in that image a true idea of an outpost, of a piercing
through the rock and an entrance into enemy territory. There is in this buried
divinity an idea of undermining
the
world, of shaking the towers and palaces from below, even as Herod the great
king felt that earthquake under him and swayed with his swaying palace.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Part 2 of "The God in the Cave"
We all know that the popular presentation of this popular story, in so many miracle plays and carols, has given to the shepherds the costume, the language, and the landscape of the separate English and European countryside. We all know that one shepherd will talk in a Somerset dialect or another talk of driving his sheep from Conway towards the Clyde. Most of us know by this time bow true is that error, how wise, how artistic, how intensely Christian and Catholic is that anachronism. But some who have seen it in these scenes of medieval rusticity have perhaps not seen it in another sort of poetry, which it is sometimes the fashion to call artificial rather than artistic.
I fear that many modem critics Will see only a faded classicism in the
fact that men like Crashaw and Herrick conceived the shepherds of Bethlehem
under the form of the shepherds of Virgil. Yet they were profoundly right; and
in turning their Bethlehem play into a Latin Eclogue they took up one of the
most important links in human history. Virgil, as we have already seen, does
stand for all that saner heathenism that had overthrown the insane heathenism
of human sacrifice; but the very fact that even the Virgilian virtues and the
sane heathenism were in incurable decay is the whole problem to which the
revelation to the shepherds is the solution.
But it is quite as much in the tone and incidental diction of the great poet that we feel the potential sympathy with the great event; and even in their own human phrases the voices of the Virgilian shepherds might more than once have broken upon more than the tenderness of Italy . . . . . Incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem . . . . . They might have found in that strange place all that was best in the last traditions of the Latins; and something better than a wooden idol standing up forever for the pillar of the human family; a household god. But they and all the other mythologists would be justified in rejoicing that the event had fulfilled not merely the mysticism but the materialism of mythology. Mythology had many sins; but it had not been wrong in being as carnal as the Incarnation. With something of the ancient voice that was supposed to have rung through the groves, it could cry again, 'We have seen, he hath seen us, a visible god.' So the ancient shepherds might have danced, and their feet have been beautiful upon the mountains, rejoicing over the philosophers. But the philosophers had also heard.
It is still a strange story, though an old one, bow they came out of orient lands, crowned with the majesty of kings and clothed with something of the mystery of magicians. That truth that is tradition has wisely remembered them almost as unknown quantities, as mysterious as their mysterious and melodious names; Melchior, Caspar, Balthazar. But there came with them all that world of wisdom that had watched the stars in Chaldea and the sun in Persia; and we shall not be wrong if we see in them the same curiosity that moves all the sages. They would stand for the same human ideal if their names had really been Confucius or Pythagoras or Plato. They were those who sought not tales but the truth of things; and since their thirst for truth was itself a thirst for God, they also have had their reward. But even in order to understand that reward, we must understand that for philosophy as much as mythology, that reward was the completion of the incomplete.
Such learned men would doubtless have come, as these learned men did come, to find themselves confirmed in much that was true in their own traditions and right in their own reasoning. Confucius would have found a new foundation for the family in the very reversal of the Holy Family; Buddha would have looked upon a new renunciation, of stars rather than jewels and divinity than royalty. These learned men would still have the right to say, or rather a new right to say, that there was truth in their old teaching. But after all these learned men would have come to learn. They would have come to complete their conceptions with something they had not yet conceived; even to balance their imperfect universe with something they might once have contradicted. Buddha would have come from his impersonal paradise to worship a person. Confucius would have come from his temples of ancestor-worship to worship a child.
We must grasp from the first this character in the new cosmos; that it was larger than the old cosmos. In that sense Christendom is larger than creation; as creation had been before Christ. It included things that had not been there; it also included the things that had been there. The point happens to be well illustrated in this example of Chinese piety, but it would be true of other pagan virtues or pagan beliefs. Nobody can doubt that a reasonable respect for parents is part of a gospel in which God himself was subject in childhood to earthly parents. But the other sense in which the parents were subject to him does introduce an idea that is not Confucian. The infant Christ is not like the infant Confucius; our mysticism conceives him in an immortal infancy. I do not know what Confucius would have done with the Bambino, had it come to life in his arms as it did in the arms of St. Francis. But this is true in relation to all the other religions and philosophies; it is the challenge of the Church. The Church contains what the world does not contain. Life itself does not provide as she does for all sides of life. That every other single system is narrow and insufficient compared to this one; that is not a rhetorical boast; it is a real fact and a real dilemma. Where is the Holy Child amid the Stoics and the ancestor-worshippers? Where is Our Lady of the Moslems, a woman made for no man and set above all angels? Where is St. Michael of the monks of Buddha, rider and master of the trumpets, guarding for every soldier the honor of the sword? What could St. Thomas Aquinas do with the mythology of Brahmanism, he who set forth all the science and rationality and even rationalism of Christianity? Yet even if we compare Aquinas with Aristotle, at the other extreme of reason, we shall find the same sense of something added. Aquinas could understand the most logical parts of Aristotle; it is doubtful if Aristotle could have understood the most mystical parts of Aquinas.
Even where we can hardly call the Christian greater, we are forced to call him larger. But it is so to whatever philosophy or heresy or modern movement we may turn. How would Francis the Troubadour have fared among the Calvinists, or for that matter among the Utilitarians of the Manchester School? Yet men like Bossuet and Pascal could be as stern and logical as any Calvinist or Utilitarian. How would St. Joan of Arc, a woman waving on men to war with the sword, have fared among the Quakers or the Doukhabors or the Tolstoyan sect of pacifists? Yet any number of Catholic saints have spent their lives in preaching peace and preventing wars. It is the same with all the modern attempts at Syncretism. They are never able to make something larger than the Creed without leaving something out. I do not mean leaving out something divine but something human; the flag or the inn or the boy's tale of battle or the hedge at the end of the field. The Theosophists build a pantheon; but it is only a pantheon for pantheists. They call a Parliament of Religions as a reunion of all the peoples; but it is only a reunion of all the prigs. Yet exactly such a pantheon had been set up two thousand years before by the shores of the Mediterranean; and Christians were invited to set up the image of Jesus side by side with the image of Jupiter, of Mithras, of Osiris, of Atys, or of Ammon. It was the point of history. refusal of the Christians that was the turning If the Christians had accepted, they and the whole world would have certainly, in a grotesque but exact metaphor, gone to pot. They would all have been boiled down to one lukewarm liquid in that great pot of cosmopolitan corruption in which all the other myths and mysteries were already melting. It was an awful and an appalling escape. Nobody understands the nature of the Church, or the ringing note of the creed descending from antiquity, who does not realize that the whole world once very nearly died of broad-mindedness and. the brotherhood of all religions.
Here it is the important point that the Magi, who stand for mysticism and philosophy, are truly conceived as seeking something new and even as finding something unexpected. That tense sense of crisis which still tingles in the Christmas story and even in every Christmas celebration, accentuates the idea of a search and a discovery. The discovery is, in this case, truly a scientific discovery. For the other mystical figures in the miracle play; for the angel and the mother, the shepherds and the soldiers of Herod, there may be aspects both simpler and more supernatural, more elemental or more emotional. But the Wise Men must be seeking wisdom; and for them there must be a light also in the intellect. And this is the light; that the Catholic creed is catholic and that nothing else is catholic. The philosophy of the Church is universal. The philosophy of the philosophers was not universal. Had Plato and Pythagoras and Aristotle stood for an instant in the light that came out of that little cave, they would have known that their own light was not universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment