VII Club - von Balthasar, Ratzinger, de Lubac, Schonborn, Fessio & Wojtyla
#11
(04-29-2014, 01:19 PM)loggats Wrote: Your conclusions are your own concern, and I'm hardly going to CAF. The kind of banal traditionalism you espouse is, admittedly, abhorrent to me, and the way the work of a man like von Balthazar is bandied about by people who have certainly never read his work, still less understood or critically approached it, annoys me no end. If that's trolling, consider yourself trolled.

I didn't realize there were different "flavors" of traditionalism and that mine was "banal" (lacking originality, freshness, or novelty).

Guilty as charged on not reading modernist heretics, the few passages from the above article is about all I can stomach. 

I think the critical approach in the article did a great job debunking this wolf in sheep's clothing, and your only response is "von Balthasar was a great man" ?  That sounds like a hit-and-run troll response designed to piss people off -- and does not sound like the critical approach you claim to value. 

We'd be interested to hear your critical response to Mr. Larson's critical response, especially in view of the fact that he's attacking one of your heterodox heroes.  Oh, that's right -- the conclusions I draw are my own concern so there's no need to set me straight, and hey, Hell is empty * and we're all going to be saved in spite of ourselves, so no worries.

*Hans Urs von Balthasar's wishful thinking, not mine.
Reply
#12
(04-29-2014, 03:56 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(04-29-2014, 01:19 PM)loggats Wrote: Your conclusions are your own concern, and I'm hardly going to CAF. The kind of banal traditionalism you espouse is, admittedly, abhorrent to me, and the way the work of a man like von Balthazar is bandied about by people who have certainly never read his work, still less understood or critically approached it, annoys me no end. If that's trolling, consider yourself trolled.

I didn't realize there were different "flavors" of traditionalism and that mine was "banal" (lacking originality, freshness, or novelty).

Guilty as charged on not reading modernist heretics, the few passages from the above article is about all I can stomach. 

I think the critical approach in the article did a great job debunking this wolf in sheep's clothing, and your only response is "von Balthasar was a great man" ?  That sounds like a hit-and-run troll response designed to piss people off -- and does not sound like the critical approach you claim to value. 

We'd be interested to hear your critical response to Mr. Larson's critical response, especially in view of the fact that he's attacking one of your heterodox heroes.  Oh, that's right -- the conclusions I draw are my own concern so there's no need to set me straight, and hey, Hell is empty * and we're all going to be saved in spite of ourselves, so no worries.

*Hans Urs von Balthasar's wishful thinking, not mine.

But you haven't read anything of his, and I'm not writing to Mr Larson! If we were to talk about von Balthasar, and you've made it very clear that your mind is made up, what possible good would that do? Am I supposed to prove to you that he isn't some terrible heretic? I'm presently reading his work "On Contemplative Prayer." It's a wonderful text and I might post something about it later. If you were willing to read it too and discuss it that could be fruitful - but you've decided that not only is von Balthasar contemptible, but also worthless. I think I might just not bother commenting on threads like this anymore, because neither one of us is going to be too happy.
Reply
#13
Anyone defending Von Balthasar et. al. would do well to spend some time reading and reflecting on Pascendi Domenici Gregis. These enlightened theologians of the council are poster children for the warnings Pope St. Pius X wrote about. If ambiguity, confusion and misdirection are your thing, by all means, enjoy. I will stick with the perennial expositions of the Faith, as handed down by the Fathers, Saints and defenders of the True Faith,  perfect and unchangable. Confusion is from satan. Period.
Reply
#14
Well, one has only to read as far as the Introduction to the first volume of the fifteen volumes of von Balthasar's Theological Aesthetics to conclude that he is not a modernist, not in any philosophical sense and not in the sense defined by Pope Pius X.
As a matter of fact he laments such developments, and concerning the so called Higher Criticism, he is just blissfully indifferent to it.
I'll just take random quote from von Balthasar, speaking of his mentor, Erich Przywara (that famous promoter of the analogia entis – that doctrine older than St. Thomas [used by him], and which is actually the very opposite of the Agnosticism described by Pope Pius X), lamenting the fact that he was widely ignored, speaks about Vatican II:

[Przywara] has long anticipated the opening of the Church to the world that came with the Council, but he also possessed the corrective that has not been applied in the way that the Council's [teachings] have been inflected and broadly put into practice: namely, the elemental, downright Old Testament sense for  the divinity of God, who is a consuming fire, a death-bringing sword, and a transporting love. Indeed, he alone possessed the language in which the word God could be heard without that touch of faint-heartiness that has led to the lukewarm chatter of the average theology of today. He lives like the mythical salamander in the fire: there, at the point where finite, creaturely being arises out of the infinite, where that indissoluble mystery holds sway that he baptized with the name analogia entis.

Of course, there's the issue of universalism, but its really not the center of his philosophy (nor its consummation), and its a universalism actually milder than one finds in the Cappadocians (that, from what I've heard, sounds a lot like the Fatima's prayer).

To criticize someone with such lack of charity and unsophistication as is done in the article could be explained by saying that the author is not a philosopher, which would be fine. But to slander a person without ever reading him, just out of some mob mentality, could be actually sinful (and by the way, relating to another recent thread, this is actually just a Catholic version of the Protestant fundamentalism – I thought we Catholics were supposed to be smart people).
Reply
#15
(04-29-2014, 01:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: As much as there are serious issues and problems in the writings of von balthasar,de lubac,ratzinger et al. there are still good and interesting and edifying insights in the writings of each of them. We cannot and should not throw out the baby with the bath water as they say, simply because there are certain things said by the aforementioned men that are incorrect theologically. Personally I have found many edifying things in say, the books of Joseph Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac, not to mention others like Yves Congar (his study on East and West and the schism comes to mind). One could certainly glean some interesting,edifying and spiritually useful things from these men, even if you don't agree with everything they say.

I agree there are good insights to be found, but a hallmark of modernism is the mixing of what is orthodox with what is heterodox.  Truth mixed with error is all the more dangerous because it sows confusion.
Reply
#16
Gidge Wrote:Loggats, I've come to the conclusion that you're here on FE to troll

I've come to the same conclusion some time ago, as did someone else who is no longer at the forum.

Nevertheless, prayers for both of you.
Reply
#17
(04-30-2014, 11:40 AM)AlphaOmega Wrote:
(04-29-2014, 01:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: As much as there are serious issues and problems in the writings of von balthasar,de lubac,ratzinger et al. there are still good and interesting and edifying insights in the writings of each of them. We cannot and should not throw out the baby with the bath water as they say, simply because there are certain things said by the aforementioned men that are incorrect theologically. Personally I have found many edifying things in say, the books of Joseph Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac, not to mention others like Yves Congar (his study on East and West and the schism comes to mind). One could certainly glean some interesting,edifying and spiritually useful things from these men, even if you don't agree with everything they say.

I agree there are good insights to be found, but a hallmark of modernism is the mixing of what is orthodox with what is heterodox.  Truth mixed with error is all the more dangerous because it sows confusion.


That is certainly true. Not everyone should read these men but if one is strong in their Faith and can ponder the ideas of others without necessarily taking them up and making them ones own they are worth reading. Even men like Aquinas read pagans like Aristotle and sifted through what was useful and what wasn't. I think well qualified Catholics ought to attempt the same with the likes of von balthasar, de lubac, congar, chenu,ratzinger, wojtyla et al.; taking what is useful and insightful and leaving the rest. Far far in the future and long after we are gone from this earth Catholics will have sifted through the giants of 20th century Catholic theology, taken what's useful and discarded the rest. We should certainly learn what we can from these men. I admit that this is not something that should be attempted by anyone with the ability to read.and curiosity though, but only by those mature enough in their faith.
Reply
#18
Okay, fair point.
Reply
#19
(04-30-2014, 11:50 AM)AlphaOmega Wrote:
Gidge Wrote:Loggats, I've come to the conclusion that you're here on FE to troll

I've come to the same conclusion some time ago, as did someone else who is no longer at the forum.

Nevertheless, prayers for both of you.

I've never noticed you on the forum before - interesting to think I've had your consideration...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)