SEBASTIAN KAPPEN (1924-1993)

courtesy: Vattamatam's Library - Photobucket

Story of a Pioneer of Indian Theology of Liberation

The Person

In our interactions with Kutti Revathi during the Theological Sypomsium, one of the questions subtly surveyed her scholarly foundations. Revathi wittingly responded, I quote from my memory “we are not academicians but activists thinking in the field.” Far from escaping scholarly research, she affirmed that she was not an armchair thinker or academician but an activist-thinker. Somewhat similar to this type is Sebastian Kappan (1924-1993), a Jesuit Indian Priest activist-theologian from Kerala. From what I gather from his close associates, I picture Kappen to be an independent, critical, unsparing, marxist, Christian, social-activist theologian. Quite approvingly, Felix Wilfred phrases him as ‘very much admired at the same time a controverted theologian’. All through his life, Kappen remained engaged in different streams of liberation in our country and with several groups of social activists. Therefore, with his style/method and thought, he became a milestone in the evolution of the Indian Christian theology of liberation. He was a bilingual theologian literarily active in both Malayalam and Tamil. Some of his famous works are Jesus and Freedom (Orbis, NY, 1977), Jesus and Cultural Revolution: An Asian Perspective (Bombay, 1983). Generally, scholars/theologians esteem Kappen for his efforts to translate Christianity relevant to the world of poor and marginalized through writings and social action.

courtesy: Vattamatam's Library - Photobucket

Thought: Theology of Liberation

In contrast to those who cone human liberation as a secular struggle carefully undoing it from theology, Kappen, founded on the Asian wisdom and Sraminik traditions (Jainism, Buddhism etc.), put liberation as the ultimate concern of theology. Liberation here signifies the total (secular/material and sacred/spiritual) wellbeing of the human person. Hence he envisaged theology as a collaborative project between different traditions (religions and Ideologies) including secular traditions everyone for that matter who worked for the emancipation of the marginalized. He defined it as a critical reflection on the ‘historical self-manifestation of the Divine as gift-call and on the human response to it’.[1] Wilfred mentions that Kappen made a conscious choice of the term divine than god to stay away from prejudices and to incorporate secular atheistic traditions in the project of emancipation – theology.

Kappen held that divine manifested in and through history. In other words, we continually encounter divine in the events that go on in and around us day after day. He proposed two modes of encounter with the mystery: one as a gift and another as a call. It becomes a gift in moments of joy, love, friendship, well being, peace and similar events that enhance the integral growth of individual, society and environment. On the other hand in the face of injustices, distinction, exploitation and abuses we experience the mystery as extending a mandatory invitation, a call, to become agents of transformation. He named this continuous dynamics of divine revelation and human response in the heart of history as theandric praxis. This way everyone’s life would be a fiat, instruments for the establishment of the kingdom of God.

Theology, for Kappen, is the discipline that facilitates these encounters and critically reflects to strip off the prejudices that hinder an authentic divine encounter, a true discernment of the divine will in the daily living. We revise the definition, “Theology is a critical reflection on the ‘historical self-manifestation of the Divine as gift-call and on the human response to it’.” He called this as the foundational theology of liberation. Thus, he evolved an Indian version of the liberation theology. It was comparatively broader that the Latin American sensitive to the religio-cultural dimension and the pluralistic context of India.

Kappen envisioned Christian theology of liberation within the broader framework of the foundational theology and our commitment as one among the others who have undertaken this project. In the Indian context, he noted that such humility was inevitable as we were a minority in the country. With his invitations for collaborations, Kappen stood out as offering a realistic solution to the problem of liberation in India.  He described Christian theology of liberation as theandric process founded on Jesus and his Gospel; but that was one side of the story. According to him, it implied a radical shift from a religion centered on the scripture and tradition of a distant past looking forward to the future reward to one that made the presence of the mystery/divine, tangible in the joys and struggles of the people.

courtesy: Vattamatam's Library - Photobucket

Christianity in India

Kappen contended the irrelevance of Christianity as a religion similar to Hinduism with all its code, creed, cult and community. I quote,

Further the type of religiosity it (Christianity) represents dovetails, in the main, with that of popular Hinduism. Both religions hold fast the distinction between the pure and impure, cult, priesthood, the veneration of image and pietistic devotions. The figure of Christ who had already taken on features of a hellenistic God, became further assimilated to the gods of Hinduism. He has lost much of his uniqueness and has consequently little now to give to India. [2]

He held that India never needed another god in Jesus Christ, which it possessed in great numbers, instead Jesus the prophet of Nazareth and his teachings. Quite different from the debates of other Indian Christian theologians, he likened Christianity to form part of the ethical religious traditions beginning from Mahavira, Buddha, and Medieval Bhaktas to the contemporary secular humanitarian traditions. He writes, “What I claim therefore is not the superiority of Christianity over the Indian religious traditions, but the superiority of the humanizing religiosity of the Buddha, the radical Bhaktas and Jesus over the magico-ritualistic religiosity of orthodox Hinduism and the depropheticised religiosity of tradition-based Christianity”.[3]

courtesy: Vattamatam's Library - Photobucket

Marxism

Kappen acknowledged the contribution of Marxism in the development of his interests for the poor and the marginalized and his critical thinking. However, he extended the Marxian social analysis to the religio-cultural dimensions of human being to effect a total liberation of the human person who is more than mere economic being.

Conclusion

In the history of Indian Christian theology Kappen is irresistible as he takes Christianity to the adulthood of its presence in India. He evoked the urgency to initiate and join efforts to work for the well being of the poor and marginalized and to break every structure of injustice in the society. While he apparently sounds irrational in his rejection of Christianity as a religion and Jesus as God, in the context of the full picture of his theology of liberation and the history of religious traditions of India, it is courageous work to explore the possibilities of Christianity’s collaboration with non-theistic religious traditions of India which rose as a revolt to the mainstream Brahminic ritualistic religious traditions. It is in this bargain his choice for the historical Jesus than the mystical Christ would make sense. In his we find a good blending of Marxism, Christianity and Indian religious traditions. Unlike other theologians/activists who belonged to either of these traditions, Wilfred notes that Kappen’s life manifested that he belonged to the marginalized and the downtrodden Indian masses. His life was music of liberation that soothed the ears of the poor, while discomforting the complacent people.

---

[1] S. Kappen, Liberation Theology and Marxism (Puntamba: Asha Kendra, 1986) 42 as cited in Felix Wilfred, Beyond Settled Foundations (Chennai: University of Madras, 1993) 140.

[2] S. Kappen, Jesus and Cultural Revolution: An Asian Perspective (Mumbai: Build, 1983) 53 as cited in Wilfred, 143.

[3] Kappen, Jesus and Cultural Revolution: An Asian Perspective, 70-71 as cited in Wilfred, 144. 

RICHARD V. DE SMET (1916-1997)

Story of an ‘Unsung Pioneer’ of Inter-Philosophical and Inter-Religious Dialogue

in the Christian Scenario of Indian-Christian encounter

A summary based on Coelho, Ivo. “Richard V. De Smet,  SJ (1916-1997): A Life” Divydaan: Journal of Philosophy and Education (2012). Some parts of the summary have been corrected  by Fr. Ivo.

Life

Richard V. De Smet was an indologist philosopher-theologian of Belgian origin living in India. Compared to people like Abishiktananda, Bede Griffiths and Raimon Panikkar, he is relatively unknown, even among Christians in India..  De Smet however, gained respect and appreciation for his contribution to Indology and inter-philosphoical and inter-religious dialogue between the Western-Christian tradition and Hindu-Brahminic tradition. He was in contact mostly with  secular Indian philosophers and Indologists, but also with Hindu ashrams, and with people belonging to the Jain and Islamic faiths.

Photo taken from
richarddesmet.blogspot.com

De Smet was born on 14 April 1946, in Belgium, to a Flemish father and French mother. Attracted to the life style of Jesuit Fathers, he joined the order during his high school, professed in his twenties - 1936. Right from the beginning he had a drive for missions in the East. Later his interests in philosophy, curious acquaintance with terms like ‘Brahman’ and ‘atman’ and interactions with P.Johanns brought him to Calcutta, India for his theology in 1946. He had sound philosophical foundation in Metaphysics, Mysticism, Transcendental Thomism (J. Marechal) and Teilhard de Chardin. He learnt his theology in an indo-Christian intellectual milieu amidst Indologists, scholars steeped in Sanskrit and Brahminic Hinduism: R. Antonie, P. Fallon, G. Dandoy and P. Johanns. The Calcutta school importantly B. Upadhyaya, Johanns, and their enthusiasm for the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara laid great influence on the further course of the life of De Smet. After the ordination at the end of his theology, he taught philosophy at Pune and continued to work on Sanskrit. As part of his mastery over the language, De Smet had laid his hands on the original commentaries of Sankara on Brahmasutras and Gita. Therefore, as he was sent for his doctoral research, he left India with a clear topic in mind, to study the ‘theological method of Sankara’. At the end of his research, unlike the common exposition of Sankara as rational thinker, De Smet contended that Sankara was a srutivadin a theologian thinking (applying reason and other cultural resources) in and through divine revelation in his case Upanishads, Gita and the like. He returned to India to teach in the department of Philospohy, at De Nobili College, Pune in 1954. Later he introduced Indian philosophy/thought in the curriculum. Thereafter, he continued to contribute through his research to the Indian Thought, its uniqueness and viability with Christian philosophy/theology, especially to the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara until death on 2 March, 1997.

During his years in Pune, he furthered his research in the Indian thought, urged by the desire to compose a comprehensive class notes for Indian philosophy.  He was actively learning from his interactions with the academic philosophers of India, through ‘All India Philosophical Congress’ and by his visiting faculty in the major Indian Universities from Banaras, Nagpur to Delhi till Madras. Moreover, he served as the kaleidoscope for his fellow Indian scholars to peep into the beauty of Christian wisdom. Often times the congress and seminars turned out to be a healthy inter-religious encounter, a meeting point of different traditions De Smet often representing the Catholic wisdom. De Smet was personally interested in a comparative study of the thought of Aquinas and Sankara. This way, he was open for a healthy collaboration and interaction from every side, religions, churches and secular traditions. He rendered a wealth of inter-philosophical and inter-religious contributions to the Indian Christian thought. In his case, dialogue always preceded years of study, reflection and contemplation. He was a combination of mystique and scholar. His works were researched responses to either a query or a problem raised in a seminar, or to a request by a scholar to work on a concept, or a topic that needed a further explanation and discussion.  Most of his works, as a result ended up as articles, seminars and papers numbering to a 775 of them according to a recent collection of his bibliography.  His friends and well-wishers have made great efforts to publish them thematically in the last years. There have been interesting exchanges between De Smet and his contemporaries of Indian Christian thought like Abhishiktananda and R. Panikkar and other rising Christian theologians/philosophers of Indian origin.

Thought

In a period of four decades and more in India, in and through De Smet there was an encounter of two great traditions Western-Christian and Hindu-Brahminic mutually enriching each other. What we find taking place in him could be characterized as a fusion of horizons. Here we would summarily present it in three strands: a) Re-interpretation of Sankara as a non-dualist, b) Resolving the reluctance to affirm the personhood to Brahman/Infinite, and c) Restoring and strengthening the non-dualist insights in Christianity.

a. Sankara is No World Denying Monist but Non-Dualist

De Smet gradually deconstructed the traditional interpretation of Sankara as a world denying monist affirming only the existence of divine/brahman/infinite to a non-dualist always carefully driving home the distinct yet non-separate existence of finite reality. But, Sankara discriminated between the independent-necessary-essential-permanent realities and dependent-contingent-accidental-impermanent things that are intertwined in us and in all that we see around. In familiar terms Sankara  identified the infinite with the permanent, and the finite with the impermanent. This formed the pivotal insight for Sankara to help us choose the right course of life. Further, he would work on to explain the relationship between the two and describe their ontological difference using the terms ‘real’ and ‘unreal’.  

Generally, the Vedantins are misled by Sankara’s use of the terms ‘real and unreal’. They read the unreal to mean ‘non-existent’ and so regard him as world denying monist. On the other hand in Sankara, real-unreal means “Infinite is the true reality, therefore ‘Real’. And everything else exists only in as much as they depend on the former, hence ‘unReal’.” The terms real and unreal represent the ontological dissimilarity of the infinite and finite. The really real eludes our sense perception. He would explain it with the analogy of ‘moon and its reflection in the water’. The fallacy to mistake the reflection for the moon was what Sankara had been combatting to illumine the world with wisdom of right understanding to attain liberation. Hence, in the writings of Sankara the term unreal used to denote the finite is not the negation of the world/cosmos. It instead pointed to the illusory character of the cosmos/empirical realm to appear as the real, blinding us to the Infinite.

In other words, in the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara the world is not non-existent, but is unReal, not Real as Brahman/infinite its source and sustainer. The infinite and finite in their distinct yet radical non-reciprocal relatedness explain the truth of the reality. We owe this interpretation to De smet. De Smet blamed such Vedantin’s misreadings of Sankara on thier quite uncritical, non-hermeneutical interpretation of Sankara as systematic philosopher with a well-developed system of thought, assuming the authenticity of everything ascribed to him as belonging to his tradition.

Sankara, quite contrary to the popular presupposition was a mystic-‘scholar’, a srutivadin i.e. a thinker who applied reason to explain the truths experienced in and through divine revelation. Almost all his writings were commentaries on scripture and tradition of Brahminic Hinduism. It is therefore wrong to project a system unto him, while the thoughts are scattered all across the commentaries. Even more precisely for the same reason, we end up misreading the terms and concepts isolated from the world of its meanings in his authentic works; Sankara does not build new vocabularies instead uses those available to explain the non-dual insights about the reality. It takes as a result, a scholar’s might to disseminate the intended meaning of the author, to develop a Sankarine dictionary. In his case, the problem is more complicated as there are spurious works mixed up with the authentic resources on Sankara. De Smet thus brought light to the Indian Scholarship the hermeneutical problems, which had lead to an erroneous interpretation of Sankara and the need to dust off the Sankarine tradition with the help of hermeneutical tools.

b. Brahman cannot be conceptualised without Personhood

(Recommended to be redone by Fr. Ivo)

Another reason for misunderstanding Sankara as a world denying monist is the erroneous conception of the Brahman of the Advaita Vedanta as non-relational being. The world/finite is totally dependent on Brahman/infinite for its existence. If Brahman is non-relational, then this logically rules out the existence of the world. This contradicts our experience. The world is not non-existent. It is real. Therefore, it follows that Brahman, who is our source and sustainer, should be relational. But the denial of personhood to Brahman, for De Smet was once again a mistake caused by incorrect interpretation of the nirguna Brahman of Sankara, translated as Impersonal Brahman. The term Nirguna Brahman, on the other hand explained the simplicity, independency, and utter transcendence of the Infinite/Brahman, exemplifing the non-reciprocal relationship between the finite and the infinite. We find therefore, the problem of inadequte translation leading to the denial of personhood, at the same time, the need to retain the simplicity/utter transcendence of Brahman/infinite.

De Smet puzzled out the issue by explaining that the term ‘person’ now readily used in exchange for human being, originally signified the nature of a being. Hence, we should take the translation ‘impersonal Brahman’ only in the modern sense of the term denying anthropomorphism/qualities. It however, remains inadequate and misleading when confused with the original meaning. If ever other Vedantins had clarity of thought about the problem of ‘Brahman and Person’, the credit goes to the contribution of De Smet. Today most scholars accept the inadequacy of the translation of the term nirguna Brahman as impersonal Brahman and affirm the personhood to Brahman/infinite.  

c. Exploring the Points of Contact between Advaita Vedanta and Christian Theism

Unlike other Christian Advaitins, his contemporaries for example Abhishiktananda who struggled to reconcile the non-dualism with Christian theism, De Smet more sophisticatedly claimed that non-dualism better explained Christian mysteries than other paradigms. I quote an interesting encounter, narrated by Ivo Coelho in his ‘reminiscences about De Smet’ where we find De Smet’s defence of Christian theism as Non-dualism:

A memorable visit to the Sivananda Ashram occurred during the Rajpur meeting of the Association of Christian Philosophers of India (ACPI) in October 1989. The visit culminated in a meeting with Swami Krishnananda. I quote here from my own memories of that meeting: ‘The meeting was held in a small corridor, with all of us on the floor, and De Smet and the swamiji seated in front of us. De Smet began by introducing us to the swamiji. “These are christian philosophers,” he said, “and they are gathered together for a meeting.” “What are you discussing?” asked the swamiji. “Oh, Indian philosophy, Western philosophy, anything, everything,” someone said. “I’m not interested in all that,” said the swamiji, and went straightaway into attack mode. “Tell me, what is your christian philosophy? How can you say that the world and God are two? That is nonsense. How can anybody be a dualist?” Some among us tried to answer. The swamiji cut them down effortlessly and mercilessly. If anyone says there is no logic in India, he should meet that swamiji.

De Smet took over. “We are not dualists,” he said. “But neither is Sankara a monist. He is an a-dvaitin, a non-dualist. God and the world are not two, but neither are they one. When God created, reality did not increase. The relation between the world and God is sui generis. There is really no other instance of this relation, and so every example and analogy limps, and must be subjected to purification before it can be properly used. But we need analogies, we cannot avoid them, and Sankara talks about this. If the world is real, God is un-real. If God is Real, the world is un-Real. But the world is not atyanta A-sat: it is un-Real compared to the Reality of God. It is not Real in the same sense as God. Its reality is a totally dependent reality, whereas God is svayambhu, sva-astika, his Reality is not dependent on the reality of anything else. The illusion is to think of the world as an independently existing reality.”

The swamiji asked for a few clarifications, and then fell silent. To this day I admire his graciousness: “If this is what you really believe,” he said, “why have you not told us so before? You christian philosophers should do something, write some pamphlets maybe. We misunderstand you otherwise ....” There were some foreign disciples who had observed the whole exchange. We asked them about their impression. “We’ve never seen him keep quiet like this before,” they said.’

Moreover, De Smet undertook a lifelong project to study the meeting point of Aquinas and Sankara the mystique scholars who present the essence of the Christian and Hindu traditions respectively.

Conclusion

Generally, De Smet is critiqued for having neglected the subaltern philosophies of India by his fellow Indian-Christian Jesuits. The Indian Scholars/Vedantins on the other hand are suspicious about the possibilities of Scholastic projections into Sankara.  Other Christian scholars criticise him for his choice of Advaita Vedanta to unveil Christian mysteries, which according to them is anything close to pantheism or unrealistic monism. But, we are yet to have a full picture of the thought of De Smet as his writings are yet to be published and systematically studied. We cannot however, compromise one thing about De Smet that in him we find a proof and model for dialogical dialogue of R. Panikkar, where the mythos of Vedanta tradition and Christian tradition have had an authentic encounter effecting mutual fecundation and mutual correction. 

EXAMINING R. PANIKKAR’S INSIGHTS ON TRINITY IN THE CONTEXT OF WORLD RELIGIONS

A summary based on Cousins, Ewert. “Trinity and World Reigions”. Journal of Ecumenical Studies.476-498.

Part I: New Phase of Ecumenism and Trinitarian Theology: Method and Insights of Raymond  Panikkar

 “Perhaps future historians will designate the period from Nicaea to the twentieth century as an early stage in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, for a new phase is ushered in when the Logos perspective of Christianity opens to encompass the apophatism of Buddhism and the unifying spirituality of Hinduism” writes Ewert Cousins as he concludes his work “Trinity and World Religions” after carefully analyzing the unique contribution of Raymond Panikkar[1] for Ecumenism through an all encompassing theology of the Trinity.

Every epoch has its influence in the development of our understanding of the mystery of reality (divine, human and cosmos). New shades of understanding emerge shedding new light. There is no point where we could we have grasped everything of the complex whole. The puzzle was unveiled by continental thought with hermeneutics and post-modernity. Every thought thereafter was situated within its historical setting (socio-political-cultural-religious setting in time and place). There grew a greater awareness about the development of thought with the changing times. Here we discuss the development of the Christian understanding of divine in the past and the need to relearn it in our encounter with the East. 

In its encounter with Judaism, Greek thought, early Christianity gradually moved beyond historical Jesus conceptualizing Jesus as eternal Logos who conceived the universe and further sustains it through the Spirit. This resulted in the composition of ‘cosmic hymns’ of the new testament see Johannine prologue (Jn 1.1-18) and Colossians (1.15-20). Thus they began to see Christ as more than mere redeemer of the believers (Christians).

The line of thought further developed with the rise of new scholars in similar context like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. There evolved thus Logos Christology attributing everything good, wise and beautiful in all cultures to Logos who is fully manifested in the incarnate Christ. This served well even in our encounter with Islam; they could not challenge us on this point. Later in the Middle Ages and the Modern Period with the rise of scientific development theologians like Bonaventure and Teilhard de Chardin extended this concept to explain the development of the science and secularism. Teilhard would note, “Christ is the Omega of evolution, drawing the entire universe to its ultimate development, from the least particle of matter to be expanded consciousness of the world community”.[2]

Logos Christology has served well Christianity in the West. It was able to relate with Judaism and Greek thought and differentiate itself from Islam founded on God’s word revealed to human beings.  Moreover, the endeavor has succeeded because Graeco-Roman and Semitic cultures were based on logos – as word and thought. But since its encounter with the East, Christianity is limping as to come to terms with its major religions and cultures – Buddhism and Advaidic Hinduism. Either we negate them to be false or we neglect them as non-existent.

We feel helpless because we are encountering religions and culture, which have no grounding in logos and technically negate it. Buddhism for example has no idea of revelation. It is silent about ultimate reality (God). If they ever explain it they call it as ‘sunya’ – ‘emptiness and void’. For the Buddhists, logos is irrelevant because words are harmful and deceptive. They do not serve the purpose. Hence they enter into meditation. Their ultimate goal of life is to realize the nothingness of existence - ‘Nirvana’ meaning ‘a blowing out’. Normally, Christians are confused listening to them. For us they are somewhere between atheists and moralists.

Advaidic Hinduism on the other hand denies the duality of our relationship with God; Hence the irrelevance of Logos to reveal the divine mystery. It contends Brahman as the ultimate self and the world as not as real as Brahman. Thus it poses a direct threat to the whole theology of incarnation. For us the theory seems pantheistic jeopardizing the transcendence of God and the identity of the self. The problem is intensified as these two doctrines form the core of their entire spirituality.

Amidst mixed opinions of theologians and scholars who attempted to dialogue with these traditions, Panikkar meets the challenge squarely with a new approach. Of the two possibilities either to change them or find a platform to dialogue Panikkar chooses the latter. He explains our inability to enter into a dialogue with these traditions by pointing finger at our platform ‘Christ as the eternal Logos’. We stand on a platform that is irrelevant to these traditions. Hence he signals the need to go beyond the universalizing logos Christology. He discovers a common ground between us and these traditions in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Panikkar describes the three persons of the Trinity as three aspects of the divinity, hence include three forms of spirituality. The Father represents the silent dimension of the Buddhism. Since he expresses only through the son and of himself is utterly silent. The Son represents the personalistic dimension of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. He relates to the world, acts as a mediator. We are created, sustained and redeemed in him. The Spirit stands for the imminent dimension of Advaidic Hindusim. It helps us identify the unity in difference between the Father and the Son. In the Son we realize our non-duality with the Father and the whole cosmos. The three persons of the trinity thus represent three different forms of spirituality, three different approaches to the divine.

The novelty of his approach is his dialogue founded on pluralism that retains the individuality of the doctrines at the same time affirming a profound unity. Unlike the past, he founded his dialogue on the spirituality of religions, their rich experience of the divine, than on their doctrinal speculations. Besides a ground breaking insight into a healthy dialogue between the major religious of the world, he has given us a new insight into the Trinity one that is founded on our experience of the divine. Yet, we may need to listen to others to understand the fullness of the mystery as it involves dimensions that are not prominent in our tradition. From the perspective of other traditions, it is an awakening to the latent Trinitarian insight in their respective traditions not so much referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit instead the attributes that give us perspective into the divine/infinite and its non-dual presence in the world.

---

[1] Ewert Cousins works on the article of Raymond Panikkar, “Towards an Ecumenical Theandric Spirituality”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, V (1968) 507-534.

[2] Cousins, 477-478. 

Part II - Examining Panikkar’s Proposal

Our aim is to examine whether, (i) Panikkar’s attempt to extend the Trinitarian doctrine to relate with world religions, (ii) and his new insights in our understanding of the Trinity, are in conformity to the tradition and teaching of the Church.

In the history of understanding the Trinity there has always been two tendencies one is to restrict it to the revelation in Christ and Church; the other is to universalize it to the entire universe – its creation, existence, and history. Panikkar would fall into the latter category. There were three universalizing currents in the history of Trinitarian theology: vestige doctrine of Augustinian tradition (West), doctrine of creation of Greek fathers (East), and appropriation doctrine of the western fathers and scholastics (medieval times).

Vestige tradition is founded on the Platonic Augustinianism. It conceived if Trinity was the first cause of all things as taught in scriptures then everything should have a Trinitarian stamp. Hence the school began to discover the trace (vestige) of Trinity in everything that exists from speck of dust, universe, to human being and his inter-personal relationship. More than a mere academic reflection it was meditation founded on philosophical and theological principles.  It got further affirmed in the Franciscan cosmic sense. Take for instance, Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1168–1253),[1] could trace Trinity in the speck of a dust: its existence represents the power which brought it into being (father); its beauty/complexity, the shape and form represent the wisdom (son) through which the dust was made by the power; and its usefulness represent the good end  (spirit) for which it is made in this case it is useful to understand Trinity. So did Bonaventure (1221 -1274)[2], Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173)[3] found the traces of Trinity in ‘nature and human psyche’ and ‘inter-personal relationships’. A closer observation of vestige tradition makes plain how it has traced the presence of Trinity from speck of dust to human inter-personal growth in a logical progression. Hence what Pannikar does is further expanding it to larger human community with its history, religion, philosophy and culture. This again is an older trend but frozen to Greek thought and Semitic religions (Mediterranean world).

The second universalizing outlook stemmed from Greek fathers (Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa) who understood everything – creation, sustenance, redemption and sanctification - in terms of Trinitarian dynamic act. Hence they were able to be aware of the action of the three persons in the universe and history. Justin and Clement of Alexandria could attribute the wisdom of great Greek philosophers to the inspiration of the Logos, which later fully manifested in Jesus. Pannikar’s proposal within this trend would extend the dynamic activity of Trinity from creation, Christian redemption and sanctification to universal religious history. This would lead to an understanding of Trinitarian activity in universal terms.

Doctrine of appropriation on the other hand was an attempt to understand Trinity from its functions/attributes that distinguish one from the other. For example, consider power, wisdom and goodness theory of Grosseteste. It helped first to find the trace of Trinity in the universe, second to relate Trinity to a non-Christian’s doctrine of divinity. Bonaventure for example speaking of the Greek philosophers writes that they know the Trinity of appropriation and not the Trinity of persons which forms part of Christian faith. So do we surprisingly find Sankara and Ramanuja calling Brahman as sat/cit/ananda (being, consciousness and bliss), in a similar way, familiar with the Trinity of appropriation than the persons. In method though Panikkar is faithful to the medieval theologians, he is radically new by carrying appropriation to a new level of universalization not lingering on Trinitarian patterns in one or the other religion but discerns a Trinitarian pattern in world religions as a whole.

Recollect he always speaks of three conceptions of Absolute, three spiritual attitudes and three spiritualities evolving from them: Father, the silent/apophatic dimension fully manifest in Buddhism; Son, the personalistic dimension as one reveals the father appears in Judaism, Islam and Christianity; and Spirit, the immanent dimension is present in advaidic Hinduism. Thus he could sum all the religions in the Trinitarian insight of the Christian tradition with openness and profound respect for their intuition.

Panikkar has yet another job to be done. His new insights especially one that equates father to a profound silence/nothingness and undifferentiated union to the spirit has to prove itself against the traditional doctrine of Trinity: power to father and goodness to spirit. While attributing unity to spirit is a minor problem however non-negligible as it renders the advaitin insight to Spirit, the problem with the understanding of Father as silence appears quite opposed to traditional doctrine of Trinity.

If we dig the history of the development of the doctrine of Trinity within the church we find similar understanding in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch who compares father to son as silence to word. The son therefore is the word that emerges from the silence. Seen from another perspective, if we strip son, the Word through whom the father manifests, what remains is profound silence. This thinking did not however become part of the creeds or any other formulation of classical Trinitarian theology. But by way of theological reasoning in can be applied to other traditions of Trinitarian theology. In the vestige tradition, take the case of dust, if we mentally strip the matter and form from the dust what remains is silence. We at times have glimpse if through meditation we tend to go beneath the form. Similarly can we analyse human psyche where memory (the historicity and learning) is analogous to the father. Later it is also attributed to the soul.

But can we associate apophatic dimension to the father who is always viewed as a dynamic priniciple, the fountain/source/spring/root of existence? Yes, because although these theologians emphasize the dynamic fecundity/productivity of the father they hint at his silent depths from which springs the power. This is more evident in the contradictory attribution of paternity and unbeggotteness to the father. The apophatic/silent dimension is rooted in the unbegotteness of the father. Such expressions are also found in the mystical traditions of East like Pseudo-Dionysius.

Panikkar hence with his new approach has brought to light an aspect of Trinity which has been elusive nonetheless every present since the beginning. Moreover we note that he is rooted in Christian tradition but open to other spiritual traditions. As a result we find originality in his response to meet this new situation (encounter with world religions especially east). He has helped us realize that ‘all spiritual traditions are dimensions of each other and that at this point of history individuals throughout the world are becoming heir to the spiritual heritage of mankind’.[4] For us Christians this implies that we would not know the depths of our mystery unless we take seriously our encounter with world religions, in this case, Buddhism and Advaidic Hinduism.

---

[1] More on Robert Grosseteste see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/

[2] More on Bonaventure see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02648c.htm

[3] More on Richard of St. Victor see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13045c.htm

[4] Cousins, “Trinity and World Religions”, 497. 

THEOLOGY OF CONFIRMATION

Information, Reasoning, Faith Reflection, and Discussion

A summary based on Puthanangady, Paul. Baptism and Confirmation (Bangalore: TPI, 2006 ).

Ceremony of Roman Catholic Confirmation

Preliminary Note

Every Sacrament initiates us into the participation of salvation wrought through Jesus Christ. Hence the context for a theology of the sacrament of confirmation is the economy of salvation. Confirmation celebrates the special role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer and in the church. We intend, in this discussion, to make sense of this special role of the Holy Spirit.[1] In the context of ambiguity about the distinction between the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, the discussion becomes important and relevant.

History

In the early church, as we learn from Pauline corpus and from patristic tradition, baptism and confirmation never stood separate. The sacrament of baptism was performed either by immersion, or by anointing with the holy oil or by imposition of hands or a combination of them. With the growing distance between the East and West, different actions gained prominence for the sacrament of baptism. There arose discussion to justify the different types of ceremonies – immersion or anointing & imposition of hands - in both the camps as to which of the two actions really communicated the Holy Spirit.  They came to a consensus that both effectively communicated the holy spirit but had different functions and purposes. The neophyte receives the Holy Spirit by the act of immersion – Baptism. The believer receives the Holy Spirit by the act of anointing and imposition of hands – Confirmation. The term occurs first in the Council of Reiz in France, 439.

Sacrament of Confirmation

After such explanation and understanding, in the tradition, henceforth it was agreed upon that sacrament of confirmation (i.e. post-baptismal anointing and imposition of hands) completes, finishes and perfects baptism. We understand the function of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation in the light of its distinction and relatedness to the sacrament of Baptism. While baptism introduces us into the mystery (immersion/PDR of Christ), confirmation makes us disciples (imposition of Hands/Pentacost); former is more a treaty, later a seal and signature; former makes us sons/daughters (free from the sin of Adam) later prophets to the whole world to proclaim the good news (our experience of Christ); former is static the latter makes us dynamic.

Action of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation

Initially, the presence of the Holy Spirit effected an impressive physical and spiritual manifestation like glossalalia, charisms etc. The contemporary theology of confirmation on the other hand focuses on the intrinsic indelible impact of the sacrament on the believer. Moreover it is not an onetime event but one that is lived and developed during the whole course of life. Generally confirmation renders on the individual special and ecclesial impacts: 1) individual receives Grace & Gifts/Charisms of the Holy spirit, 2) an affinity in the welfare of the church community (active participation and later prophets/missionaries) and 3) openness to enter into dialogue with other churches if extended even other religions to create new heavens and new earth.

---

[1] To understand the Holy Spirit see Pneumatology. If I synthesize, I would define him as the force (Power) from God in Christ that inspires about our being, origin, destination, and the means to achieve it. 

CEREMONY OF LIGHTING CANDLE

Symbolism in Baptism

Following the symbols of ‘cleansing with water’, ‘anointing with holy oil’ and ‘clothing with white garment’, the symbolism of light is rich and meaningful for the newly baptized. He/she is now given the guiding principle for the future course of her life. We are cleansed from our sinfulness (water), anointed to be a prophet-priest-king, given the nature of our end (purity/white cloth) and now the path that leads us to such an end is ‘an enlightened life in Christ’ is symbolized by presenting the burning candle to the newly baptized flamed from the Paschal candle. Thus, we begin a ‘new life’.

The symbols are rich in signifying every one of these aspects: the candle of the baptized stands for the individual Christian, which is lit from the Paschal candle that stands for the risen Christ. It is then handed over to the newly baptized, symbolically saying – ‘be enlightened by Christ the eternal flame/wisdom’. The celebrant tells the recipient ‘receive the light’. Curiously in the adult baptism this makes a lot of sense. As if a gift is given in reward for the commitment he or she has taken with his/her consent for the baptism in the church. In the Infant baptism, the instruction is rendered to the parents and the god-parents about their responsibility to instruct the child in the teachings of Christ; that the newly baptized may understand in the future that s/he was brought up in light in accordance to the baptismal promise – a rare gift to the Christian.

It would fitting at this point to make cursory note about the history of the use of candles in the catholic worship. Historians of Christian tradition trace the origin of the use of candles to the influences of Judaism and Roman popular cults that revered light as the symbol of the divine presence. The use of candles for worship in the church is precisely tied to the Roman culture that used a candle like substance in its religious practices and other ceremonies. The name ‘candle’ was introduced as late as eighth century by the Catholic Church. In the first and second centuries, the Christians adapted the use of candles in its worship for their rich symbolism of divine presence and for other practical purposes like to dispel darkness in their secret worship.

History makes reference to the use of candles in worships and funerals of martyrs as early as third century, I quote:

The use of multitude of candles and lamps was undoubtedly a prominent feature of the celebrations of the Easter vigil, dating, we may believe, almost from Apostolic times. Eusebius (Vita Constant., IV, xxii) speaks of the ‘pillars of wax’ with which Constantine transformed night into day, and Prudentius and other authors have left eloquent descriptions of the brilliance within the churches.  (“Candles” Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Easter Candle

Later the council of Elvira (c. 300) condemns the use of candles at the cemetery during the day.  Hence it proves the use of candles right from the beginning of the church. The controversy comes to a close with St. Jerome explaining the symbolic significance – candles as sign of joy - of the use of candles. Probably it is for this reason that right from the beginning candles had a close association with Baptism and Easter Vigil. The sacrament for that matter was described as ‘illumination’. The theme forms part of the Exultet used even now on the Holy Saturday. It is highly probable that it was composed by St. Jerome, I quote:

[…] in this the idea of the supposed virginity of bees is insisted on, and the wax is therefore regarded as typifying in a most appropriate way the flesh of Jesus Christ born of a virgin mother. From this has sprung the further conception that the wick symbolizes more particularly the soul of Jesus Christ and the flame the Divinity which absorbs and dominates both. Thus the great paschal candle represents Christ, "the true light", and the smaller candles are typical of each individual Christian who strives to reproduce Christian his life. This symbolism we may say is still accepted in the Church at large. (“Candles” Catholic Encyclopedia)

The candles, thus gradually gained prominence with growing understanding of the wealth of their symbolic significance. It was used in every worships and sacraments except reconciliation even the excommunication ceremony had the symbol of candle being snuffed out a tragic representation of a life being excluded from the precious life of grace in the Catholic Church. Only in the 11th century did they make their appearance on the altar itself, a feature which became obligatory in the 17th century.

The light therefore entrusted to the child in the sacrament of baptism symbolizes the free gift of Christ given by God to the newly baptized. In our presence, as a result people would experience Jesus the light of the world - joy, life and truth! With this understanding let us now prayerfully take part in the ceremony of ‘lighted candle’ and pray for the baptized that he/she may live in accordance to this rich gift – a responsibility that is no less difficult in this world.

Bibliography

“What is the history of the use of candles in the catholic Church?” 27 Sept. 2012 <http://www.catholicenquiry.com/church-practices/what-is-the-history-of-the-use-of-candles-in-the-church.html>

“Why do Christians burn candles in Church?” 27 Sept. 2012 <http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/candles-church.php>

Horvat, Marian Therese. “Votive Candles, Fire and the Love of God.” <http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/f004rp.htm>

Saunders, William. "The History of Votive Candles" Arlington Catholic Herald. <http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0434.html>

Thurston, Herbert. "Candles." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company,1908. 27 Sept. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03246a.htm>.