COPIES IF THIS TEXT, PLEASE QUOTE THE SOURCE.
Latin American theology of the martyrs has found a rich source of inspiration for his theological reflection. But that theology is not only "has martyrs", but is martyrdom. Accounts like the Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero and the theologian Ignacio Ellacuría, continue to inspire many of today's theological insights.
In this sense we can say that the ministry of Oscar Arnulfo Romero continues in current theological reflection. In fact, this support is the strength of martyrdom theology of Latin America today.
This article face two issues: first, we tried to accommodate the theological heritage and testimonial I. Ellacuría in what respect his ecclesiology, although not exhaustively treated. Moreover, from the testimony of Romero and I. OA Ellacuría, we raised the hypothesis that a responsible and credible church practice in Latin America was not only possible but necessary.
1.1 An ecclesiology with historic responsibility, the sense of the church in I.
The attempt theological Ellacuría was to make the kingdom of God in history, conceiving the church in the service of this implementation. The essential elements of its main theological legacy are: first, its reading and application of thought to the Latin American Zubiri, evident in his "historical realism", and second, the way God relates kingdom and church, in short, the relationship his life and his work with the testimony of OA Romero. These are some of the items presented in the first part of this article.
To I. Ellacuría proclaiming the Gospel, if not part of the essential historicity of the church, becomes superfluous and presumptuous. For this reason, one of its major efforts was to define the meaning of the history of salvation or as he preferred to say: "What does the history of salvation to the salvation of history."
Ellacuría In his political theology claimed that it was necessary to take seriously the phenomenon of secularization, had to see it not as a minor phenomenon which theology would not have to worry so much. In this perspective I. Ellacuría launches a thesis that, when he said (1972) and the context in which the said (El Salvador), could sound as out of place, ie if the secularization is a fact, then, only a faith and a theology secular sense, or can have it at least to an increasingly secularized.
past, and the Protestant theologian Bonhoeffer martyr, also called on to take seriously the reality of the world. Both authors, though in different terms, speak of a responsibility to the world. For Bonhoeffer "in Christ we are offered the possibility of reaching simultaneously participate in God's reality and the reality of the world, the one not without the other." The finding of these two martyrs is that "no two realities, but only reality and this is the reality of God in the real world, which has been revealed in Christ. " It makes no sense, then, find a real Christianity out of the real world or real humanity out of the reality of Jesus Christ. This openness to the world, is therefore in the vision we have of the world, one of which is that the church does not seek to dispute the world a piece of its territory, but seeks to bear witness to the world that is still the world, ie dear world reconciled to God.
In Bonhoeffer, human religiosity refers to the man in his need, the power of God in the world: that God is the deus ex machina . But Holy Scripture refers to the weakness and suffering of God; only the suffering God can help . In this sense, the progression to adulthood in the world, spoken of by the author, to put an end to all false image of God, man's gaze directed toward the God of the Bible, which acquires power and place in the world due to their impotence. Here is where you should come into play "mundane interpretation."
As this is not difficult to understand how Christians are with God in his passion, and are called to suffer with God in the suffering that God inflicts the world without God. The adult world is not God, and perhaps this is closer to God than the world "minor." So says the theologian, "we live in the world etsi deus non daretur " ("as if God were not a given" or "as if God did not exist.")
now appears that the thesis of I. Ellacuría and D. Bonhoeffer is reinforced when one considers that secularization can be seen as a "common denominator", which is not only overcoming the medieval religious monopoly, but a time of new foundations.
In any case, what interests I. Ellacuría, not so much theoretical debate has been generated on secularization, but rather something more simple, namely that the church will take seriously the concrete historical situation of the people it serves. This is thus the first element of inheritance I. Ellacuría proposed: overcoming the bias of the history of the church, which gives priority to the identical, for the dialectic. It reaffirms the unity of salvation history and history of humanity, even if this means having to continue confrontation with the idealism and Marxism.
As regards the responsible exercise of ecclesiology, and would suffice appeal to the life and martyrdom witness I. Ellacuría, but this does not do justice to his usual reasonable way to justify their theological positions, so it is necessary to know what is the element that leads him to conceive of ecclesiology as direct involvement in the process of realizing the kingdom of God. The answer could go back to what I. Ellacuría called "will of fundamentalism and will to truth ', but that would take us to the high philosophical and theological speculation among Zubiri, I. Ellacuría, prefer better to go directly to what he calls "taking over reality."
According I. Ellacuría, "the formal structure of intelligence [...], is that it is not being understanding or abstraction of meaning, but to grasp the reality and deal with it." This proposal was I. Hermeneutics Ellacuría to define the relation of man with reality in terms of transformation and not merely contemplation, he said this does not exclude the Marxist way, but his theology is mainly inspired by Zubiri, proposing three steps: First, be aware that our in reality is not being "thing-like ', ie, as one among the other objects, but a being in respectability, is taking over reality , This awareness should lead to ethical decision bear that reality, that is, feel a responsibility to respond to demand things, that in a normal process, must lead to concrete actions deal in reality.
But to what extent can one be responsible in terms of Christian faith and the exercise of theology? Normally, in the Christian life, the highest level is called martyrdom and even that level was I. Ellacuría theology.
In short, the exercise of ecclesiology in I. Ellacuría is that the church is taken responsibly the challenges of historical reality, taking care , loading and taking care it, to do that salvation, in view of the kingdom preached by Jesus takes shape in history.
A further element that defines the mission of the Church in history is its condition of sign. After I. Ellacuría said the historical mediation as essential to the revelation of God, then you have to specify those elements that make this revelation take flesh in history. Try, therefore, identify areas of reality in which to find the fundamental aspirations of the people of God and the longings of the people of men. There are three dimensions with characteristics biblical and secular characteristics "liberation" as a process of freedom, "justice" and "love." In this way the church can find their proper placement, between the revelation of God and the cares of the world, to exercise, in short, its sacramental in a credible way.
God is only accessible from the mediation of the sign. The church, inspired by Jesus Christ, is part of that perspective. I. Ellacuría without breaking the unity of history, believes the sign should be history for you to overcome the limits of pure nature and to be seen from the history of salvation, imposed arbitrary than the immanence to which man is subject . The key is reading the story of the living Jesus, in which immanence avoid falling into a historicist. When it is said that history is essential place for God's revelation by such means the country which expresses the personal and collective freedom, and where God is present alive, free and personal. If this is true, then it means that the credibility of the church, while pointing to his public statement in reality is based on something it is intrinsic, then, strictly speaking, the church has its pivot in Jesus Christ and it is he who must manifest. This will be centered in Jesus Christ to the church avoids two reductive visions of salvation: the intimate, subjective reduction and reduction-politicizing secularist. Therefore, the historicity of the revelation in sacramental mediation should be open to the eschatological future.
1.2 OA Romero and I. Ellacuría the interaction between ecclesiology and ecclesial practice
theology I. Ellacuría Zubiri inflows received on a philosophical level and OA Romero at the pastoral level. Here we consider their relationship with the latter.
Eight months into the murder of OA Romero, I. Ellacuría wrote an article that helps to understand the mutual relationship between the two martyrs. It matters little, says the theologian, who killed him, "was the evil [...], but an evil, a sin and a historic anti-Christ, the which have been embodied in unjust structures. " What lies, says I. Ellacuría, the effectiveness of his ministry, always had as a Christian, pastor, prophet and priest?
OA Romero is an example of the "historic power of the gospel." I. Ellacuría underlines the fact that OA Romero "not only achieved this without leaving his episcopal functions, but make them real," has not made a difference the very fact that he was bishop, but the way it was. According I. Ellacuría, "the ultimate cause is that he began to announce and carry out the gospel in all its fullness and with full incarnation." According to the rector of the UCA, it is part of the church of the martyrs only a gift of the Holy Spirit breaks into our lives and makes us confront directly the historical sin, and to which we are called to make a decision. In OA Romero would have been the death of Father Rutilio Grande, as an example of a village massacre, which took him to see reality with clear eyes, "and then he revealed what it meant to be a prophet and martyr", and began prophet and martyr race, with a meeting with the suffering of his people, for the church to recover its prophetic pulse lowered. But he also the reverse route, ie, the people began to feel God closer to them, the more operative Spirit, a Christianity more credible. But, that's why they killed him and so is a martyr, because his people came and made the people feel close to God. A church perspective view of martyrdom is always close to the town and the people, even in its secular sense, feels close to the church. Also OA Romero always preached openness to transcendence, a transcendence that is not presented as an abandonment of humanity, but as the improvement and refinement. The example of OA Romero made credible the Christian message. Never in El Salvador, the church has been as believable as that historical moment.
As I. Ellacuría sees the church as the embodiment of salvation in a concrete historical process, and OA Romero serves as an example for ecclesiology, "so to speak of that he began to realize, in a surprisingly effective, salvation the historical process, which is being implemented in El Salvador. " But this identification with a concrete historical process needs clarification, that is, the gospel needs to incarnate in, but not identify with a particular historical process.
is no accident that I. Ellacuría taken, of what people meant by OA Romero, the element that has helped him to speak of a persecuted people and ultimately crucified. The concept of poverty, according to I. Ellacuría, OA Romero integrates the impoverished majority due to social marginalization, grassroots organizations calling for a government repressed most popular and all that, even without being organized and fighting and supporting the popular cause. It was this town that OA Romero took to the witness of the Word and the blood. And to explain this love for the poor as hatred against the wealthy class.
Based on the argument that no historical accomplishment reach the ideal that the kingdom of God demands for men and for the people and the kingdom of God is not parallel to temporary political projects, but its ferment, I. Ellacuría highlights the main features that should set the interaction between the kingdom of God and struggles. The highlighted items are: compassion, mercy and faith on the poor.
can conclude that "the theology itself has a vital field prophetic witness" in a situation of persecution of the true church and theology involved in in solidarity with the victims of persecution and, rights perspective human repression against movements for justice. No wonder now speak of "martyrs of justice." Here is one of the peculiarities of the church martyrs of the twentieth century, not the church is persecuted because their dogmas are threatened or because the state wants to expropriate their property or because ultimately it will attack the Christian faith. Here the only issue that angers the tracker is that the church has established itself as a defensive shield between the violence of the corrupt governments and oppressed people, here the church is persecuted because it exceeds its capacity from its mass and specific Christian and acting as "critical conscience of society ' defend to the end the rights of the individual. This means that the new vision of martyrdom, we must have either the political motives as theological reasons. Political because these martyrs are killed not by their specific profession of Christian faith before a non-Christian, but to stop the emancipation that the option for the poor behavior. Theological because here the kingdom of God really leavens the whole lump and is not confined only to the limits within the Church.
The most important thing is that the set historically persecuted people of God, given that fundamental dynamic of moving from 'non-people "to be" people of God "(cf. 1 Pet 2.10), for the people of God can only be a people of one who was crucified and that only after his death raised.
With these short observations we wanted to present the interaction that occurs between the ecclesiology of I. Ellacuría and pastoral practice of OA Romero in conditions of persecution. If you would like to summarize what I. Ellacuría meant by such interaction would then have to consider their own words: "in a few cases, like that of Monsignor Romero, may be a admirable example of how to raise the people's interests with the interests of God, the transcendence of history, fallen man to man high, the people with the true people of God. "
2. responsible
E l martyrdom is the ultimate expression of the sacramental. For various reasons. Especially since, if we give for granted that Jesus Christ is the true and own sacrament, and if we have known the significance of its sacramental only after his death on the cross, then, the martyr, to the extent of its significant potential, reveals the Christian form of death. In addition, if the church should be the holy church also subjectively, and if this holiness should look for truth as established by the grace of God, and if that indeed occurs, then it can be pre-eminent mode only in martyrdom. Since the death of the martyr par excellence of Christian death, this means that martyrdom is part of the essence of the church. In the end, martyrdom is true that in the sacramental sign of baptism is already indicated, die and be baptized into the death of Christ. This leads to the conclusion that the sacredness of the church is not just one aspect of the doctrine of the church body, which teneo that respect, but also something that should be implemented with all the realism possible. But it requires, says Ch Duquoc, that the church recognizes its be temporary, because the capacity for change and innovation in the ways the church is test the acceptance of "duty to die" for the birth of the kingdom . The first difficulty that the church must overcome if he wants to make a sacramental charge, is in itself. Being placed in the "dark interval" between the opacity of history and clarity of the kingdom and assuming its precariousness, its ambiguity and its social consequences, the visible church enters the open space by way of appearing of God in Jesus Christ, in stealth mode. This does not deny its institutions, but it gives a fair placement. As synthesized De Certeau, "the church is always tempted to contradict that assertion [...], to identify truth with what it says about itself."
now trying to answer two questions what responsibility do we mean? Is it possible that the church can live out their sacramental in a responsible way?
2.1 Liability, hope and martyrdom
In the ellacuriano ethically 'take on reality "is echoed in others, think for example in the beginning responsibility of Hans Jonas, whose philosophy can be placed between the principle of hope E. Bloch and the principle that we call "anti-hope" Günther Anders. Jonas's thesis is very similar to G. Anders. Both authors start from the awareness that the promise of technology Modern has become a threat to the immodesty of the objectives of eschatological utopianism, the responsibility principle opposes the process to preserve the modest man in the ambiguous residue of his liberty, any mutation of circumstances can ever suppress the integrity of his world and his stand against the abuse of his power: "we may endanger our lives, but not of humanity." The possibilities for the future of humanity is not only positive, can also be negative, hence the need for this responsibility: that referred to the responsibility according to their sense is the actual or potential life, first human life is threatened by civilization industrial-scientific-technical, such temporal correlations is concluded that the liability does not add anything but the moral of the ontological constitution of our temporality.
The possibility of a global death calls for a global consciousness that helps us understand that life on the surface of the earth is a reality essentially precarious. At present survival is no longer just an expression of a need, but that, henceforth, is a genuine moral obligation, is witnessing a true ethics of survival. It is imperative, then, a humanism humility, where the ideal of a humanity that has sovereignty the world is an illusion if not down to an 'agreement' with nature, where the glorification of the human self is fatal for the planet. This moral planetary asks us not only that we free our minds from the illusions of the amount, but also to emancipate our bodies, which have become accustomed to the joys quantitative.
On a more theological, D. Bonhoeffer puts the responsibility before God and for God, before men and for men, and this is always the responsibility of the cause of Christ and only in it a responsibility for his own life. The responsibility is given only in this case, the confession of Jesus Christ.
The structure of responsible life is determined by two factors: the linking of life to man and God and the freedom of life itself. Without this link, and without this freedom there is responsibility. The link has the form of representation and accommodation to reality, freedom is shown in the self-life and action and the risk of the actual decision. No man can escape the responsibility and therefore the representation or replacement. Even the man representing someone living alone, and also a qualified manner. Representation and therefore liable only occurs in the perfect sacrifice of their lives to other men. The manager does not have to impose reality a strange law, but rather the conduct of the person is in real sense "according to reality."
Bonhoeffer understood that, for "reality" is not in the first place and definitely something neutral, but the real , that is, God made man. All factual receives the is real, whose name is Jesus Christ, its ultimate foundation and its ultimate disposal, its rationale and its ultimate contradiction, his final "yes" and his latest "no." So as concrete freedom 'made' the faith, the responsibility to check the quality of obedience. It finds its most complete form when placed in the service and the position of others. "Representation" takes a line function guide and works as a sort of "sacrament" living.
If responsibility means "wholeness and unity summary of the response to the reality given to us in Jesus Christ, as opposed to partial answers one might give," this means that the total gift of Jesus Christ carries or drags us to give a full response, thus accountability means "that jeopardizes the entire life, this is life and death. " The exact timing of the responsibility is understood in terms of encounter between the freedom of God, whose revelation we know in Christ, and freedom of man, whose instability is perfected in the testimony. Rahner would say, from a more existential, that the Christian relationship to the absolute future, which is God, not reduced or abolished, but radical future responsibility for the present world, and that man can bring to fruition this willingness to open the future absolute, fashion authentic existence, one in a relationship, while critical and positive, responsibility and action for a future always present world again. However, the future does not consist of the possibilities hidden in this, being autofundado in God comes to us as the strength of their freedom loving. The gift of God is expressed in the Crucified, it intertwines the future promised freedom and love of God with injustice and death, the ultimate meaning to the nonsense to show the victory over everything that is negative. The cross, rather than a tragic figure is the "womb" from which comes the new creation. The future can not be left imprison Christian nor the realism of things and the history of the victors being challenged in-depth degree of human freedom, the future can not ignore the Christ of God.
The time of testimony is, then, a time of hope . But it is not any hope, but of those who died waiting ("crucified peoples"), of which the community of believers recall, and those who still suffer today. It is, therefore, a militant hope, a hope -in-action, Christian hope carries with it a dis-conformity with reality. This hope is rooted in the event Jesus Christ, and therefore, is seen as a struggle against frustration against the prophets of doom and the "end of history", guided by a life for life. Therefore, it is a hope that becomes the dynamic output from the land of oppression to the promised land and not idealistic dreams feeds they get from reality but, rather, it is the acceptance of liberating promise of God, acted to give his life for others.
A final passage is to know how the responsibility is related to the martyrdom and how it, as Christian Death, can be understood as being-for-life. Martyrdom, as a Christian death, strictly speaking, can not be understood otherwise, but as Martyr paradoxical historical manifestation of Jesus who gave his life for humanity. Heideggerian definition of existence as being-for -death , forced to find another way, you do not run in fatalism imposed by the reality of death, whether it is possible being-for- life and in what way it is.
As Levinas notes, Heidegger in the time-death, death reads from his interest in defining the time. There is a time to be reduced-for-death, Dasein structure, ie still subjectivity in its origin, the relationship with the being, from which one understands the other. There is only one value and the value of being purely formal value which lies Heidegger's rejection of the values. The key to reading Levinas is the concept of "responsibility" or socio-religious vision of the time-death, the inclusion of "others" on how to handle the dual time-death and not only the ontological view of "Being" or "being-individual existence."
E. Reading Bloch, presented in the opposite direction from Heidegger death time. Try to outrun the analysis time of death as ontological death as nothing and temporality connected the anguish of nowhere to get a thought in which the meaning would still be connected to the world, but in the sense that the world is deeply related to other men. This is all comes, according to the philosopher in a philosophy that encourages social concerns the whole of knowledge and culture, and in which the ontological terminology is related to the other. Which can be found in a social or religious thought. The response to the theme of death, he says, can not only ontological but also ethics. Highlights the issue that death brings into focus the proximity of the next issue which, paradoxically, he says, it is my responsibility by his death.
If the merit of Heidegger has been to have made clear the profound humanity of the death, something that is inherent and belongs to the formal structure of our lives, in Levinas calls the theme of death Assisted by the ontology to the ethical dimension, death does not end with the fate of their individuality and assignment, but positions "beyond" the metaphysical concept of nature, speaks of our ethical responsibility to others.
But with Heidegger and Levinas are always in a philosophical level. In theology the question changes; in Jüngel, for example, speaks of "irrelacionalidad" of death, a more incisive view that reveals the drama of death. If God does not cease even in death to relate to us, even more, if identified with Jesus, died to prove kind to all, then, means that in the heart of the irrelacionalidad of death has given birth to a new relationship between God and man. Note well: The new relationship between God and man consists in the fact that God himself suffers irrelacionalidad death that alienates himself to men. God is inserted where there are broken relationships and relationships dwindle. The only plausible explanation of death as irrelacionalidad is to be motivated by love, that is why not only act, but the being of God. According Tillard, human destiny there is nothing great and nothing that has to do with the love that should not pass through the narrowness of thanatos : not only the eros, but its transfiguration evangelical agape.
In Jüngel, thinking about death is an attempt to rethink God in the dialectic of presence and absence, to rethink the internal man is a qualitative difference between God and world, between the near and far, inside an dialectic of revelation. In the death of Jesus himself, the highest expression of God's absence, found the tracks, barely visible but secure his presence. The absence, then, of any gender-pain, sin, death, division, failure-is figure, mark, sign, manifestation of God's presence because, looking at the tree of the cross, it takes a differentiated concept of revelation, has the intuition of revelation as the difference, dialectic between God and the world.
Death has thus a symbolic function and testimonial. K. Kitamori says our pain, and we believe also death, "must witness the pain of God became the symbol pain of God." And is that death is a strong function dialectic, first limited, but otherwise allows. But every man has a symbolic function, consider the eye, is both the indispensable opportunity for hearing, but her greatest limitation, the same can be said of language. Death, he says, Jankélévitch not only prevents us from living, limited life, and then one day reduced; but at the same time we understand that without death man would not be a man, which is precisely the latent presence of death that favors large stocks, giving them the fervor, ardor, the specific tone. You can say that what does not die does not live.
we considered necessary this premise about death as martyrdom is a way to die, therefore, the possibilities to enter the imagination of Christians and people in general, depends heavily on conception that she has. This means that if "the bourgeois world hidden death", and seen that the Christian death is martyrdom, then why should not it also hide it? Returns, therefore, the need for Christians, by virtue of their baptism, to live with responsibility to be witnesses of Christ. In a world where it seems that capitalism has triumphed, the poor and the martyr, become "foreign bodies", a poor or a Christian who wants to live in radical or is destroyed or assimilated by the system, but is denied a life by free choice. There where the memory of Christ becomes real and effective, then the Christian should know that it becomes possible to drink the cup. Martyrdom is not a project of their own sanctification, but is an event in which God gives the believer to the wicked and is a pure gift of God. When given the martyrdom, solidarity with the men, and in particular with sinners, it is not contradicted by the martyr, indeed, it is asserted, and if being "foreign body" epiphany becomes inscribed in the testimony, then it is already set in motion the process of recognition of the martyr also part of their executioners.
If God is a God who "takes" or as he preferred to say I. Ellacuría "charging" with the reality of sin. The disciple, then and therefore the church is also called to take responsibility for the suffering to the world: "Being a Christian is to lead. Just as Christ carrying the cross, he retained his fellowship with the Father, for which he is carrying the cross signifies communion with Christ. "
2.2 Exercise of the freedom and sacredness of martyrdom
Taking charge of the world's problems from the standpoint of faith, ie, to serve the construction of the kingdom is not something optional for the church, belongs to the sacramental nature. However, their sacredness is concerned, as its foundation, Jesus Christ, which predicted that the kingdom of God on earth would confirm only through contradictions and struggles, which might require the ultimate sacrifice. This means that correlated realities as "cross", "suffering" and "martyrdom" are no exception in the life of the church, much less foreign, quite the contrary, correspond to the historical form of the church: Martyrdom has, undeniably, an eminent function sign (sacrament). Skip this principle, saying the blessed resurrection of the church, turning a blind eye to sin and death that it generates in the world, would maul the church.
Well, the sacramental meaning of martyrdom is based on the event Jesus Christ, the primordial sacrament. In Jesus Christ the transcendence of God is not understood as something beyond humanity, or as opposed to it, but as the transcendence of God who communicates, and the transcendence that is part of the story in its own way the God of Jesus. This means that as in the life of Jesus was possible the revelation of God and the martyr, as an expression of the highest level of experience of discipleship, it should be possible to find God's presence manifest. And it should be possible also that the key provision found in the martyr's existence can be passed from the point of view of faith, ecclesial expression of martyrdom.
The martyr is situated at the meeting of human freedom with the freedom of God in Jesus Christ communicated. Only in this way can overcome the fatalism that imposes natural death. The martyr accepts historic responsibility that their freedom has been given by God, and as such, the hosts and at the same time, from the faith, bears witness to that gift. Therefore , martyrdom is not just the precise moment of violent sacrifice, that in the natural does not specify anything specific martyrdom means something only if it is seen in the complexity of the testimony of Christ, ie in life, passion, death and resurrection. Va placed in the monitoring plan, for only thus can one understand that the gift of liberty is experienced in everyday life, or delved into the historical responsibility and can be completed, when required, in the shedding of blood.
can witness many realities in the world: justice, morals, revolution, etc. But in the specific case of Christian witness, a martyr, first try to fully realize their own personal self, but I like that has been donated, martyrdom becomes a reditus, a deep aspiration for transcendence, the culmination of the state search and insecurity that characterizes normal historical existence. Now the man based on his being free, is open whenever the possibility of non-freedom, which is why the witness in general and martyrdom in particular, addresses the subject in the privacy of his conscience forces him to take a decision against what proves to be a true reality, the martyr must ratify their faith and their appreciation against the God of Jesus, which makes it exist as free and rational.
Faced with the threat and fact of the repression against the people the martyr embodies a "will to meaning ', ie expresses the possibility real that another way of living among people is possible, it is total rebellion against all existential insignificance, is the Christian hope act. It is hoped that, while the martyr embodies the values \u200b\u200bof the kingdom until the last consequences in the historical level, this does not exhaust the mystery, but what it means. In fact, martyrdom is meaningless at this level, as feel closer to God who comes. But while the martyr does not exhaust the mystery, but his testimony into the mystery and, within the limits of his testimony, reports the mystery, that is it "the flesh becomes word and the word became flesh." Their individual testimony is resized achieve universal value and establishes its originality, the martyr witnesses to a reality beyond it. As it is 2Co 4.7: "we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that the surpassing power is from God and not us."
The martyr, reaching the highest level of significant density, becomes for the Christian community and the human community in general word "sharp" at the service of God's revelation of Jesus. His testimony has a recreational function, as expressed by the martyrdom of Jesus in the historical present, the martyr, then, challenges, without do violence to the freedom of its partners, sponsoring others to generous that it is a reality, the acceptance of his invitation gives life to the community of disciples.
is at this point that the tracker is wrong and when martyrdom shows its potential dialectic, the persecutor thinks that by killing the witness nullifies the danger of being unmasked in its anti-testimony. On the contrary, it is then that makes him a martyr to express the full potential of the evil that lurks therein.
2.3 Martirio, sacrament for all time
Martyrdom full title belongs to the life of the church. Martyrdom is an act of the church. Ignoring this principle is to have a false idea of \u200b\u200bwhat is the historical and sacramental nature of the church. Well, with martyrdom the highest expression of evangelical witness and expressing the evangelical witness in the sense of Christian mission, the nature of the church (AG 2), then, martyrdom is also seen within the coordinates of the mediation ie as an "instrument of intimate union with God and the unity of all mankind" (LG 1). However, the martyrs reflect the way Jesus exercised his sacramental with respect to God, that is, with the persecution and crucifixion. So that martyrdom is a concentrate of what must be preached to all members of the church, namely that "it is necessary that all members of [the body] is like [...] He still on the Pilgrims land, following in his footsteps in the suffering and persecution "(LG 7). If the church is "a witness among men of divine things', then those members own, which preach the gospel not only "by his preaching, but especially for life", they realize that by which only makes sense the existence of the church, "making Christ present to men." If the martyr effectively manage that, then justified its perennial.
baptism and martyrdom 2.3.1
But, refine the sacramental of martyrdom. Consider, first, the interaction baptism, martyrdom. According to Christian tradition, it becomes part of the church by baptism, which puts into perspective all the baptized testimonial. The vocation to martyrdom is to bring "fulfillment," its "conclusion" and "perfection" implicit Church-baptismal vocation. God the Father, in fact, calls "the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4.13) in the baptismal vocation, but particularly so in martyrdom, where there is an early maturing and matured intensive God's grace .
In relation to the Son, is beyond question the analogy of the martyr's sufferings and death of Jesus. Let a first level of relationship. There is an analogy between Christ and the martyr, that is, what happens in baptism sacramental configuration, the configuration happens martyrdom 'semantic-mimetic "semantics, because it means the image of Christ's life in your own life and mimetic because it mimics only in the modern sense of "mimesis", but plays and becomes effective, within the limits of monitoring, the work of salvation that reaches fulfillment in Christ. Jesus himself said he had to be named citing the cross (cf. Luke 12.50). Thus, his death is a baptism of blood and baptism is, strictly speaking, a death in Christ. Thus, what the baptism is only a constant readiness, in martyrdom is a timely completion. The martyr is the heir of the promises of the Father for his intimate union with the Son, and, among the paschal mystery, baptism and martyrdom is given a vital link.
The second level in the analogy baptism, martyrdom is the ethical coherence in the life of the martyr. The point of communion with Christ is the fulfillment of the Father's will, obedience to death. This is usually said from the point of view of faith. But being faithful to the Father's will is true also in other virtues. The image of God defend the rights of individuals, for example, is a legitimate provision of testimony before God, the church and the world. In considering the consistency martyr ethic opens the issue of martyrdom in a broader universe of understanding, this expansion does not diminish the specific meaning of Christian martyrdom, rather it enriches it. In fact, when we meet people in other religious traditions, which have been delivered to death for defending the rights of the individual, these actions can not have deep evangelical roots, because Jesus was killed, to maintain a lifestyle consistent with their principles and for his preaching and his actions did not match the official version of religion and political power of its time.
level in the Church, baptism, martyrdom relationship is in terms of credibility of the church. If baptism is the means to join the church, martyrdom is the highest expression of the vitality of the church. This seems a contradictory view, but in reality is dialectical in the sense that martyrdom is a sign of the dialectical relationship that the church should have with the world, is the vanguard and its thermometer. When the relationship with the world is peaceful no martyrs, but at the same time, when the martyrs cease this means that the church has lost its credibility, ie, it has accommodated the structures of the world, has lost vitality. In this perspective, the martyr should not be reduced to be the "defender of a body of doctrine" but a "creator of the church." The baptized, in particular as the martyr and provoke a crisis when attacking a baptism is Christ pursued: "So also each of us carries a responsibility which he owns one and is responsible for Christ and must give faith. " The church, if true, is called to 'disturb the consciences, to provoke crisis living at the time, "as" a word of God does not touch the particular sin of society in which it is advertised, what gospel is that? ".
2.3.2 Eucharist and martyrdom
As Ratzinger says, the theology of the cross is the budget and foundation of Eucharistic theology. The German Pope argues that "the theology of the cross is eucharistic theology and vice versa." So for a proper understanding of the Eucharist requires three levels: the theology of the cross, the theology of the sacrament of the Eucharist and the theology of martyrdom. Not interested at this time to break down the correlation between these three aspects, concerned only with the conception that the theologian Ratzinger is the martyrdom in liturgical perspective.
testimony of the apostle's death, Ratzinger says, is a liturgical nature, is a stop spilling his life for men. As in the case of Polycarp, martyrdom is described as a liturgy, it is more like becoming Eucharist. The martyr goes into full communion with the Passover of Jesus Christ and thus becomes Eucharist with him. Entering into the mystery, the martyr, his death, lives and gives life. Martyrdom is thus a source of faith. In this mode, so our life becomes a gift for men, Eucharist worship of God and lived.
The first impulse when addressing the relationship martyrdom Eucharist is to go in immediately, the martyrdom of Christ when viewed from the standpoint of worship, as a scapegoat, a sacrifice. This is true, but is placed in the context of the historical reasons for the death of Jesus, why he died and why they kill. The church fathers argue strongly that the church born of the martyrdom of Christ, ie, after his death and resurrection, and this statement includes the liturgy, part of the life of the church, so the orandi lex and lex credendi always have to combine them with the lex vivendi. All the talk of the death and resurrection of Christ makes sense only in the whole of its existence and not simply the precise moment of his sacrifice on the cross.
The key liturgical sense reading of the death of Jesus, without having to skip the whole of his life, gives the Epistle to the Hebrews , it states forcefully lex vivendi in the humanity of Jesus, who "had offered in the days of his life on prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears that could save him from death, yet he was a Son, through what he suffered learned obedience "(5.7 to 8), that loyalty to God over their lives unto death (cf. Heb 2.9) is that after the lex orandi proclaims: "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him by God a high priest like Melchizedek to " (5:9-10).
The Eucharist is not reduced, then, the ritual moment of its conclusion, it is seen in all its dynamism, between a source and summit of the life of the church, the very existence can be considered as a " Mass prolonged. " In it we find the whole spiritual good of the church, Christ and Easter. Now that the Eucharist is sacrifice means that it re-occurs (is present) the sacrifice of the cross as a memorial and because it will make good on their fruit. This means that if the martyr carries with it the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in your body (cf. 2 Cor 4.10) - this means also carrying on the historical present, the signs of Christ (cf. Ga 6.17) and complete in itself what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (cf. Col 1.24), then also the martyr to that extent, re-produce the sacrifice of Christ and, as such, enters the Eucharistic mystery, and it does only in the order of the sign, in a sacramental way, but performing it (in re ) in his own life, overcoming this is by way of completeness, of sacramental mediation.
The martyr is the love that makes the hinge between the community and God Jesus whom testified. Highlighting the meaning of the sacrificial death of Christ is a movement "centripetal" to that which constitutes the heart of the Eucharistic rite, but have said that this mystery is a dynamic, encompassing the entire life of the church, which, speaking of martyrdom from the mystery of love, what we do is put us in a movement "centrifugal" service to the kingdom, which can only be understood from the meaning of service is the Passover of Christ. The Gospel of John offers a scene that illustrates this very well founded and we are saying. In the context of the Last Supper, in the context of Passover, when John calls' the time Jesus ", it says that Jesus' rising from the table, removed his clothes and wrapped a towel around his waist. Then poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet "(13.4-5). Among the first movement of Jesus to his disciples to wash their feet and the conclusion, there is a cutscene. Peter refuses to let Jesus wash his feet, and Jesus insists that to have to part with it is necessary to enter the service dimension. Only then Peter accepts (cf. 13.6 to 11). It occurs in the scene a kind-if we may say-in conversions Peter brevis. But, let's get the story. Once washed the feet
"He took his clothes, returned to the table and said:" Understand what I've done to you? "You call me" Master "and" the Lord " and rightly so, because I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you "(13.12 to 15).
The scene takes place in a context Easter, the first thing Jesus says "I loved to the end" (13.1), which was "over dinner" (13.2) and that it was the death and resurrection of Jesus, because God had come and "God again" (13.3). This brief statement shows the dynamics in which Jesus wants to come to his disciples: out of God come to earth → (3,19) → return to God, embodied in the community of disciples : up (leave) the table off his clothes to wash the feet → → dressed again, return to the table. first movement is given Jesus' we call 'centrifugal', because it leaves the table, removed his clothes, the center of the scene is the washing of the feet, and then there is the return movement, the "centripetal" took his clothes and returned to the table. From our point of view is this dynamism that should characterize a martyr church, a church with a dynamic circularity between the celebration of Christ's sacrifice in the ritual order and service to the world on the horizon of the kingdom.
As regards the scene of Peter, he is usually seen as an expression of the institutional church. It is noteworthy that the evangelist the present confusion in front of the gesture made by Jesus. The church must be in constant state of conversion, you should not rely only on their structures, must "take off your clothes", "strip" of everything that prevents or hinders the exercise of its sacredness. Must give up the triumphal pomp and retrieve their precarious humble servant, he must "leave the table", particularly when it is confused with a throne, stick a towel and made to heal the wounds that sin creates in the world. The church of the martyrs has been stripped of all his powers and faces with responsibility sacramental silence of God in the hour of his passion. Only thus can be a credible church. Will therefore be correctly understood the church's participation in the kingship of Christ under n. 786 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church :
For the Christian, "to serve is to reign" (LG 36), particularly "on the poor and the suffering" which reveals " the image of its founder poor and suffering "(LG 8). The people of God fulfills his "royal dignity" living up to this vocation to serve Christ.
Sacramentality responsible, seen from the point of martyrdom, then, the attempt demonstrate that the sacredness of the church should not only mean the claim eminent an essential aspect of the doctrine of the church. It must also involve an implementation of this statement. The first question was to say that the sacramental is founded on Jesus Christ, original sacrament and that everything that is said of the martyrdom and the sacredness of the church, is referred to this basis and, ultimately, the mystery of the Trinity.
The second question concerns the essential human response since its release, the gift of God that they are manifestations. The martyr, with his testimony radical, making it "restore" something that she received the gift of God: their freedom.
Third, with radical discounts, the martyr, becomes a likeness of Jesus Christ, a sacrament of God's revelation in history, the martyr entering into the mystery is the cause of faith, does not exhaust mystery, but about the mystery men.
Finally, we presented the relationship of martyrdom with the baptism and the Eucharist, as a concrete expression of his constant presence inside the church's sacramental dynamism. Especially the Eucharist-martyrdom relationship we have collected the item indicating what it might mean to speak of a church martyrdom. The result is a church that puts its institutions at the service of God's encounter with men, recognizing that to achieve this has to shed all that makes a wall of separation between herself and the world that does not mean that wall down necessarily mean that it loses its identity, but by recognizing their precarious and the dialectical sense of being in the world, can make close to the sufferings that afflict the world and be enriched by the contributions that might come from other religious traditions.
3. Conclusion
U na ecclesial reading of martyrdom involves a series of elements that do not have to be invented from scratch, but is founded on the Christian tradition in typical form of martyrdom. But that typically must be enriched further with the new expressions of martyrdom, as have been experienced throughout the twentieth century.
Two particularly important aspects are highlighted: first, return to the martyrdom of bishops and laity. For a long time was virtually impossible to find a bishop among models of sanctity of our time, usually were the founders of religious orders who monopolized the space of the canonization of saints. Second, one enters a participatory dimension of church life, there is an interaction between the ecclesial praxis and theological reflection, the ecclesiological not talk about what he believes is or may be the church, but what that the church is in its historical journey.
This vision of martyrdom is uncomfortable, because it just does not fit the classical view, here it went from odium fidei, the odium Caritatis, this does not mean that is a false vision and with it are simply calling on the authorities that since Benedict XIV, understood the canon law, have determined the meaning of Christian martyrdom, to be open to theological discussion, to generate a real space to the issue of martyrdom in the exercise of theology, one can speak of true martyrdom and martyrdom is not a second degree in other non-Catholic Christian communities and that the debate in view of a multicultural and multi-religious context, where the sense of transmission faith would have to be retaken.
