|1. Les erreurs de Vatican II
2. Jésus-Christ est-il le Fils de Dieu?
3. Comment le Christ peut être reconnu comme le Fils de Dieu
4. Commentaires sur l´idée de l´expiation
5. La question demeure: Jésus-Christ est-il le Fils de Dieu?
6. Heureux les coeurs purs, car ils verront Dieu (Mt. 5, 8)
7. Remarques sur le traité: „Heureux les coeurs purs, car ils verront Dieu“ (Mt. 5,8)
8. Mais nous tous qui reflètons la gloire du Seigneur
9. Annexe: „Avoir Dieu en nous“
10. L´importance de l´art dans le domaine religieux
11. Informations de la rédaction
|Remarks about the discourse: Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God (Mt. 5, 8)
|Remarks about the discourse:
“Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5, 8)
After reconsidering my (philosophically orientated) discourse about the problem of the knowledge of God I commented with an elucidating parallel in the religious sector. In it I had said (EINSICHT 4/44, p. 107): “In all tradition of the will and the doctrine of Christ there must be a moment which exceeds the mere conveying by tradition and where it (the will) immediately shows and testifies as itself how it wants to and wants to be as it shows itself: the identification of appearance and being (being as an sbsolute, unconditioned will).” As a condition for the knowledge of God – not as a principal point of view but in the area of concrete revelation – we had found (absolute) love. “If, then, love is the criterion for a knowledge of God, the experience of a moral unconditionality, that was incarnated in the Person of Christ, the question arises from this: What must this love must be and why could Peter answer to Christ, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God?” (Mt. 16, 16
“By this I obtain certainty of His divinity when I experience Christ revealing Himself to me [His Self-Revelation]– through an act of divine grace – (…) directs (…) that his love absolutely wants to embrace me”.
This moment in which He gives testimony of Himself by revealing Himself, which we had shown is an epistemological moment, thus by philosophical reflection, is comprehensively confirmed in the text of the Gospel of Matthew. For when Christ asked his disciples: “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?” (Mt. 16, 13), the disciples answered: “Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” (Mt. 16, 14) To the question of Christ, whom do they – the disciples – take him, Peter gives the remarkable answer: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt. 16, 16) After this, Christ explains as clearly how Peter came to this insight: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 16, 17)
Afterwards I realized: Here is the postulary condition from a philosophical point of view which obtains its confirmation in that provided by revealed Scripture, the Gospel of St. Matthew, where Christ testifies for this immediateness of self-revelation of God towards Peter; and, so, Peter can also articulate this insight. Without the immediate influence of God, Peter would not have been able to make this statement.
We know this way of testifying for oneself from simpler processes of knowledge. I can for example direct my eyes to items. But if this item does not show itself (by itself) in a certain color – for example in red – I do not see it as I do not see red shown. For I cannot simply manipulate my seeing. I can certainly direct my sight in a very attentive way; but I am dependent on it – that is, the item – to present itself in the colour red. In the area of inter-personality, the other person must freely show itself to me as a different self. This scheme for knowledge in reference to God means that I, if I want to know Him, makes me dependent on His showing Himself (giving testimony of Himself).
Why do I set out this thought in such detail? Throughout the years while I have supported a lot of various activities in the preservation of the faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God, Who founded the Church as an institution of salvation, I often also experienced that the faith is, so to speak, only seen as a sum of moral rules—rules, yes, that are correct. But the faith in the living God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became a man, with whom I can connect myself interpersonally even if His Person remains somewhat obscure to me in my external vision, has continued to be completely hidden to these persons. As such the faith is framed in a limited theological system. Therefore, it is not without reason that, instead of love, arrogance is the dominating attitude of self-satisfaction in one’s ability to reproduce the system.
Faith – and it should be clear – is chiefly a gift of the grace of God which I must, however, acquire and dedicate myself to the possession of.
(EINSICHT of February 2015, no. 1, p. 12 ff.)