THIS VISIBLE WORLD IS NOT THE END…

 

“This visible world is a trace of that invisible one and the former follows the latter like a shadow”, says Al-Ghazali (c.1058 -1111), a polymath Muslim scholar and theologian.[1]  Affirmingly, the lesson we learn from  Mary Magdalene and the Apostles’ encounter with the risen Christ is that “this world is not all that there is”, says Bishop Barron. We know little even about the natural world. Death, known to be the end of our lives, need not be the end either. For, example, a seed dries, dies, but spurts with new life. Similarly with our natural death a “new heavens and a new earth” springs up.  God’s creative process continues to show up something beyond human imagination and understanding.  The impossible happens.

This earthly life is towards a higher growth and maturity,  something more permanent. The daily discoveries of the universe are a proof of this continuous expansion of creation. The least harmonized human understanding of the world is incomparable with the grandeur of the mysterious universe. It makes little sense to explain this creative wonder. The differences between our understanding lies in each one’s different emphasis based on the  appearances. Human being are just pilgrims on this endless journey. Neither history and facts, nor witnesses are going to fathom  the whole story. All will have difficulty in grasping the reality.

Human presumptions prevent us from knowing the truth, and this   ‘blindness’ is historical, which is always limited.  For example, the Jewish followers of Jesus thought " he was the one to redeem Israel." But that expectation is overturned overnight with human discouragement and dissolution.  The transitional time which is a process,  is itself timeless. “The transitional period until the messianic kingdom, which the Apocalypse seeks to postpone until the end of time," explains Renaud Silly. In Mark's Gospel, after the Transfiguration, the disciples "questioned among themselves what rising from the dead meant" (Mk 9:10). For many Jews of that era, who expected a general resurrection of all the elects, this idea was indeed strange - some of them, the Sadducees, did not even believe in the resurrection of the dead. There is a different order of reality – where the perishable and the imperishable unite.

There may be  a different order of reality which we do not know now, but  in future will.  The  identity of  mortal living beings as man and woman  or animals and insects,  as we see them dying is only a visible reality. The ambiguity of a different kind of body may be clear in the future too.  If time is timeless at the end, the matter and flesh also transform in identity. That which is perishable turns into imperishable ( cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

Observable facts or history are not only reliable evidential proofs for mortality. The credibility of any event is based on  to a multitude of witnesses. But the value of the witnesses can be varied. Only a summation of all testimonies and observation or tests, give  an objective understanding, but strewn with bit of subjectivity or all of it.  For example, all “visionary experiences, are fundamentally subjective" explains Daniel Marguerat.[2] Often  hallucination, can give a true understanding of an unexplained event.  Historians too are not credible in their writings in its totality. They need verification of the reality in context then.

Similarly, an excavation finding is not a visible proof of something the excavators wish to establish (race, culture, etc.) To know the truth, the most important thing is what is not seen. The basic ground of any observable or analytical finding is the thesis, a presumption which is proved in the process. The real objective experience is subsumed in a metaphysical experience, with a leap of ‘faith’ –a presumed belief. Therefore, as Renaud Silly states, "Sensory vision is not enough, but signs lead to an understanding.”[3]

What we humans are doing on this visible earth is solving a puzzle, as far as we can go, and sometimes  various pieces intuitively fall into place. Often, they are coincidental.   The whole of creations and its understanding hangs in balance.  However we try to get it partially after few attempts,  we will never get the whole secret and the mystery, because mystery always remains a mystery.  The puzzle will remain eternally unsolved.

Knowing things in its entirety is a constant battle dominated by tensions, an outright conflict, that opens up a brighter and broader perspective of reality.[4] The turning point in human history would be realizing this radical novelty; that is, facing reality, in which this turning point is not visible. Humans face and see the war, with its destructions and endless conflicts, but reality resists faith in the unknowing. Oscar Wilde once wrote, “The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.” This visible mystery calls us to delve into the depths of what lies before our eyes. At first glance, it underscores the value of tangible and observable aspects of reality. Yet, upon deeper analysis and reflection, it reveals a philosophical interplay between perception and reality. More than the mystery of the unknown –that which is still hidden from us – the observable hold greater intrigue. Beyond the layers of familiarity associated with the visible world, there is an intricate patterns and interconnected ecosystems, manifested gradually as we pill off what is seen outside and exploring the inner world. We unveil wonder. However, at the same time, that which is unseen, the invisible —the mysteries of the human psyche, cosmic forces, and underlying reality—has captivated human imagination. Plato’s allegory of the cave and quantum physics exemplify this quest for knowledge beyond the visible mystery. Therefore, the visible and the invisible are intertwined in a balance. In order to understand the world, like a painter’s dimensional shades to create depth, understanding the world requires the apparent and the concealed aspects of reality. While we depend on the reliability of our senses, contrary to what Wilde confirms, we care compelled to question our perception too, because the fuller reality is beyond the realm of both our senses and perceptions.[5]

We can only persevere in the evolving reality where everything changes. The law of engagement is replaced by the law of the unknowing. The  deficient ‘WE’ are not the ‘almighty master’ of human history, but God is.  Therefore, a life lived in mystery is the ultimate human endeavor to be pursued upon. This, of course, will not change the course of historical reality, but place them in a broader perspective where the hope of a fulfilled life is possible.

 

---

[1] Cf. Al-Ghazali, in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali, 16.4.2024.

[2] Cf. Guillaume Daudé, The accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels, https://international.la-croix.com/pray/the-accounts-of-the-resurrection-in-the-gospels, 7.4.2024

[3] Cf.  Guillaume Daudé, The accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels, https://international.la-croix.com/pray/the-accounts-of-the-resurrection-in-the-gospels?at_source, 3.4.2024

[4] Cf. Arnaud Alibert, Easter: God's battle?, https://international.la-croix.com/pray/easter-gods-battle, 7.4.2024.

[5] Cf.  Oscar Wilde: 'The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible,' in, The Socratic Method, https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpretations/oscar-wilde-the-true-mystery-of-the-world-is-the-visible-not-the-invisible, 7.4.2024

FROM ECCLESIO-CENTRIC TO COSMOTHEANDRIC UNITY

                       From Traditionalistic to Progressive Catholicism

 A Salesian Priest Psychologist, Peter Lourdes, while giving a homily during the Eucharist celebration with the 4^th Year students of theology, on 24 October, 2009, at Morning Star college, Barrackpore, West Bengal, said that he found himself lost being in the midst of a world of Bible, Philosophy and Theology scholars. He felt himself as a fish out of water! According to him, although there is a lot of Philosophy in the various schools of Psychology, this subject itself (Psychology) is not considered Philosophy but Science. Therefore, “the hot breeze blowing between Religion and Science” often blows against Psychology and other human sciences. 

The truth is, in today’s post-truth society, Religion and Science will have to take each other seriously. We are constantly seeking the truth. Ours is an ongoing search for the truth.  Can the Catholic Church and Science recognize each other? Or just travel on parallel lines? History proves that the Church, for very long, ran on parallel lines with other Christian religions. Little by little, with cautious moves, She then “crossed lines and began to take them more seriously” says Peter Lourdes. If this has happened gradually, a similar thing can happen with the Church and Science as well. 

We can make an attempt to find some answers to this problem.  In the course of history, what has happened in the Church, is a shifting of her centre of identity. That foundational shift, made possible for the Church to cross the lines, and meet with other Religions and Sciences. 

At one time the Church was convinced that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the Sun revolved around it. The hierarchical Church (still not yet ‘People of God’!), looked at the universe from that centre of gravitation and felt a sense of security being at the centre of the world. Church became the centre of self-reference. It is the place from which the Church referred to herself and told others who they were and ‘what they should be’. Church felt ambitiously ‘good’ (self-righteous) about herself within a limited space, unable to see beyond her boundaries. Later, that very centre was shifted, and the Church began to see the universe differently. She enlarged her vision and stretched herself beyond the boundaries and came to recognize more of the universe. A progressive move began to take place, and the process is still continuing, but with much ‘murmurings’, and many obstacles created from within.                                                                                                                                               

Each time the Church moved from her centre of self-reference, Peter Lourdes holds, the boundaries were stretched. There was a time when She was Church-centred (Ecclesio- centric), and to a certain extent, still is. From such self-centred identity, she continued feeling self-satisfied, and at home only with fellow Catholics, leaving aside other Christians. They were left outside the boundary, with very little recognition or communication. Salvation was considered to be the ‘in-thing’, only for those, within the Catholic fold. Such traditionalistic mindset still continues within the Church. 

Recently, Pope Francis has already taken some measures against traditionalists (motu proprio Traditionis custodies) which goes against his consistent emphasis on dialogue to attain unity. Certainly, suppression cannot be the way. Traditionalists with particular liturgical tastes are also those with corruption of various kinds; and dialogue becomes impossible. Only way is to move ahead in the progressive path through reason (science) and faith, at the same time keeping watch over  the more dangerous aspects of traditionalism. Many traditionalists reject the Second Vatican Council, refusing to go with the present world realities, and are historically connected to “racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and the authoritarianism of today's Catholic integralists” (Gregory Hillis, Unity without Reduction, https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/unity-without-reduction/15626, 18.2.2022). 

Church history showed some evidences that later She moved from Ecclesio-centric to Christo-centric, and so She began to recognize all those centred on Christ. Her boundaries were stretched and other Christian religions (denominations) became part of her ‘neighbourhood’ through an ecumenical spirit. She was able to recognize and talk with all believers in Christ as partners, if not equal. This resulted through the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. 

However true this might be, there is a disjoint between the dialectical focus of Francis’ thought and what is found in Traditionis custodes. Certainly, the ecclesial unity cannot be imposed from above, yet efforts must be made to move from polarity to communion despite tension – towards harmonizing opposites. Progressive unity is possible with synthesis of past and the future, than through reduction. Progressive unity becomes more difficult without reducing conflict. Progressive unity is to be lived out in creative tension. 

Any non-dialogical approach can never achieve to build a progressive Church. Neither can one force the traditionalists into conformity. Incongruities can be noticed in Traditionis custodes that insists on open dialogue. Traditionalists, lacking nuance, are fixed on their ideology, and are disinterested in any dialogue and discernment for change. Additionally, the ecclesial divisions are too often promoted by social media.  We must acknowledge real differences existing between these groups in the fields of theology, ecclesiology and morality, though there are traditionalists who try to understand the progressives. Real communion is realized in a dialogical form, in the patient development of interconnections among all sections of society, irrespective of creed and caste. As a Church we need to engage with them, than to demonize opponents. Often enough the progressives refuse to acknowledge anything good in the other. These differences are not new in the Church. In the course of the years after the Second Vatican Council, the divisions between "conservatives" and "progressives" are more noticed and re-enforced. Some conservatives "go to any length in order to defend their own fanatical concept of the Church" (Gregory Hillis, Unity without Reduction). Not only is their understanding of tradition "static and inert"; it actually celebrates some of the most questionable aspects of Church history: "Inquisition, persecution, intolerance, Papal power, clerical influence, alliance with worldly power, love of wealth and pomp, etc." They're characterized by triumphalism and a belief that they are the Church. We should be also beware of "extreme progressives." While progressives speak of dialogue and openness, they are often “closed” to others. This is "arrogant triumphalism" that ridicules and dismisses conservative voices. 

 The Church under the leadership of Pope Francis is now moving towards another centre of self-reference, Theo-centric, through an inter-faith and ecumenical efforts in the recent years. Through such progressive approach, the Church is beginning to “recognize not only those seeking Christ, but also all those seeking God.” Interfaith dialogues, prayer-meets, signing of documents together with the Muslim leaders, etc. are signs of considering other religions as equal partners. The whole human species and the whole of creation (Laudato Si’) are considered as our neighbours. We all are on the path together with our “up-and-down search for God.” This is not just overcoming boundaries. It is a move to abolish the ‘lines of actual control’, notes Peter Lourdes. Once, Swami Vivekananda, when as an Indian delegate at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, addressed the assembly as  “My Brothers and Sisters”, the audience burst into loud and long (15 mins) applause with a standing ovation. For him, the centre of identity was not his nation, nor himself.  His centre was God and humanity, who are in search of a universal Supreme Being.   

What is next then?   Here is a broad generalizations on a prospective progressive Church that calls for serious scientific studies. In the coming Synod 2023 and later, the Church presumably may shift her centre of self-reference to cosmotheandric, universe, God and human species – towards Universal Brotherhood (cf. Gaudium Spes, 38). The human family strives together human progress, making the earth a home for true brotherhood, through the transformative love (God is love) in justice and peace.  Consequently, as Peter Lourdes further notes, She will recognize and dialogue, as an equal partner, with the physical sciences (cosmos), the sacred sciences (theos), philosophy and the human race (andric). 

Following the ‘mea culpa’ over the Galileo case, the Church will continue acknowledging her mistakes and her stubborn stands, and build bridges of peace with the physical sciences. But still, She will have to make peace with the human sciences (psychology included). In order to achieve such target, She needs to move her centre towards the Cosmotheandric reality. Then only, peace efforts and dialogues will be possible.  Just as the cosmic ‘neighbourhood’ stretched over, beyond the catholic boundaries including ecology and eco-theology; just as the Church moved the centre from earth to sun, so will the People of God’s search for the Truth (Reality) will further expand. Along with the continuous evolution and expansion of the Universe, the Church will see diversity and complexity in a progressive search for the immeasurable Truth, and be more aware of a deep, underlying connection of the whole of creation, even what is beyond the grasp of human intelligence. Then, as Peter Lourdes notes, the ‘God’ we have been seeking, worshipping and fighting over, will become “everybody’s secret” (Upanishads), under the single universal brotherhood and sisterhood. Here ‘God’ (Father/Mother) refers to one Jesus prayer to, affirms Peter Lourdes. Matthew Arnold (1822-88), once re-defined Christian religion as “morality touched with emotion.” This may be true, but we cannot allow this religion to be the ‘opium’ of the People of God, to which to get drugged and addicted! In Indian philosophical and theological understanding, God is one in union (Yog): of loftiness of God and lowliness of wo/men. In this context, the Cosmic Christo-centric approach to religion, will voice for communion, of one bringing the whole of creation back together. 

Everything from God is holy; all that is created, is good. This material world is holy and it reminds of God incarnating into the world, dwelling within the creation. God delights in and sustains the cosmos. With such worldview, it is possible to make the leap from materialism to communion with the creation, by shifting our centre of identity from mere possessions to being part of the rest; that the creation is a mystery beyond the material — a spiritual reality included— opening itself to the divine. Therefore, we live in this world as brothers and sisters, with the sense of the sacred union with the rest of creation.