In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

309 11 The Implications of an “Intermediate Eschatology” I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. —Philippians 1:23 It shall rest in the Patriarch’s bosom, as did Lazarus, hedged round with flowers. —Aurelius Prudentius1 The Dynamic of Individual and Collective Eschatologies For an extended period of time, it is fair to say, Catholic eschatology paid more attention to the “last things” of the individual: death, personal judgment, heaven or hell, beatific vision, personal purification, and so on.2 It is not of course that other critical elements were excluded. As we have seen throughout the preceding chapters, the individual aspects of Christian eschatology would be meaningless were they not understood in an interpersonal context. Death, for example, involves separation from others. Judgment is centered on our actions with respect to other people. The agent and standard of these actions is Another, Jesus Christ. Heaven and hell are lived in communion with God and with other people, or in separation from them. Furthermore, the different elements that go to make up the Parousia in the strict sense (the coming of Christ in glory, resurrection and renewal of the cosmos, universal judgment) were by no means excluded in traditional Catholic eschatology. But it is probably true to say that these collective elements were considered for the most part as accidental adjuncts within a structure centered on the union of the individual with the Divinity .3 It was common, for example, to speak of the “accidental glory” that beatified souls obtain through resurrection.4 Theologically speaking, the expression is 1. Aurelius Prudentius, Hymn for the Burial of the Dead, 149–53. 2. See p. 41, n. 12. 3. On the modern history of eschatology see P.Müller-Goldkuhle, Die Eschatologie in der Dogmatik des 19. Jahrhunderts (Essen: Ludgerus; Wingen, 1966), 8–10; I.Escribano-Alberca, Eschatologie. 4. On the Scholastic notion of “accidental glory,” see Aa.vv., Sacrae theologiae summa, 4th ed. (Madrid : Editorial Católica, 1964), 1014–16. 310 Honing and Purifying Christian Hope quite legitimate, but the impression may be given that the end of the world is of secondary importance in the study of eschatology, whereas, as we have seen, it sets the scene for eschatology at a fundamental level, and goes to the very heart of New Testament Christology. From many points of view this emphasis on individual eschatology may be seen as a blessing in disguise, for it provided the basis for an anthropology that valued the individual human being, that did not allow human persons to be considered as replaceable or dispensable parts of an anonymous aggregate. Christian eschatology should reflect—and has traditionally done so—the fact that each human being, destined by God for immortality, is precious and unique. However, this understanding also tended to facilitate a somewhat other-worldly, spiritualistic, individualistic view of human destiny that seemed incapable of inspiring an incisive social ethics, a spirituality deeply involved in transforming the world. The fact is that Christian appreciation of the intrinsically social nature of being human gradually brought scholars to attempt to widen the scope of the study of eschatology to the hope of the whole Church: the Parousia, the coming of the Lord Jesus in glory at the end of time.5 A greater awareness of the eschatological character of the entire New Testament, the liturgical movement, the awareness of the role of Christian faith and holiness in society, developments of ecclesiology, the universal call to holiness, the urgent need to evangelize and promote justice and peace, all made their contribution to this shift in emphasis. In effect, Christian eschatology, far from promoting an escapist or pietistic attitude to life and to the world, must be in a position to transform it under the power of Christ.6 Whereas classical manuals of eschatology, both Protestant and Catholic,7 dealt primarily with an individual eschatology, the emphasis began to shift toward a collective one, centered primarily on the Parousia. Among the first Catholic authors to assume this position were Michael Schmaus8 in 1948 and Romano Guardini some years earlier.9 John Paul II, in an extensive 1982 interview with André Frossard, described this process in the following terms. 5. The individual and collective aspects of Christian eschatology are bound together, without separation or confusion: see G.Gozzelino, Nell’attesa, 306; G.Pattaro, La svolta antropologica. Un momento forte della teologia contemporanea (Bologna: EDB, 1991), 42; A.Rudoni, Introduzione...

Share