Just a note to explain what I was thinking when I raised the question of what Pentecost might bring to bear for our conversation in class this past week:
Pentecost is often used as an example of the church's catholicity (note lower-case 'c'): unity amid diversity without uniformity. For me, this is an interesting contrast to the chaos at Babel for precisely this reason; as Yves Congar writes, “Through the mission and gift of the Spirit, the church was born universally by being born manifold and particular. The church is catholic because it is particular and it has the fullness of gifts because each person has their own gift.”
I’m not arguing for an absolute contrast between Babel/Pentecost (or that Pentecost solves the problem of Babel), but I do find it intriguing to consider how Pentecost might be a model for coming together amid diversity/plurality to authentically share something in common. In that way, Pentecost is not just an eschatological ideal. Pope John XXIII, calling for the Second Vatican Council in January 1959, described it as a “new Pentecost.” During Vatican II, in the decree Ad Gentes (On the Mission Activity of the Church), the council affirmed that Pentecost represents the birth of the church: “The Church was publicly displayed to the multitude, the Gospel began to spread among the nations by means of preaching, and there was presaged that union of all peoples in the catholicity of the faith by means of the Church of the New Covenant, a Church which speaks all tongues, understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel” (§4).
Obviously this is much more theological than philosophical, but the point of my question was to suggest that there are alternatives to the chaotic paradigm of Babel. I’m not sure that Pentecost has practically superseded Babel (as Ad Gentes asserts), but with the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, we might construct wider communion and share clearer (and linguistically faithful) communication than simply accepting the “scattering-confounding” state of affairs following Babel (this is Steiner’s view, not Ricoeur’s; On Translation, 12). I was curious what the class might think of considering the value of Pentecost in this light and was grateful for the conversation on Tuesday night and anything that follows …
peace and all good,
marc
Friday, April 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Marc
ReplyDeletethat is a very cogent point. Where Ricoeur and Derrida see Babel as a liberation into a plurality of tongues you (and Steiner and perhaps Vatican 11?) see it more as a scattering to be recollected and redeemed in Pentacost. Am I right?
I share your preference for peace over discord; but can we have real peace if it does not fully account for a salutary tension between multiple tongues and translations? Unless perhaps as an eschatological goal? But there too we might ask if the kingdom speaks with one Logos or with many? Doesn't the Pentacost account suggest it may in fact be many? And that many may in fact be better than one? Is not the Patristic image of Perichoresis - portrayed (by Andrei Rublev amongst others) as an endless dance between three persons approaching and withdrawing from each other - is this icon/image/metaphor not a mark of divine resistance to one voice, one being, one church, one final translation into a totalising Logos? Just a question in response to your excellent comment - to be continued?
Prof Kearney
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePlease see the continuation of this discussion at the new post made Saturday April 17th; I lifted it out of the comments section and gave it its own entry.
ReplyDelete