![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
« Eucharist and Peace | Main | Struck Blind: Acts 9:1-9 » November 1, 2005
David Schindler on Balthasar
David Jones at ressourcement.blogspot.com posted an article from Communio and Liberation's journal, Traces. There is a summary of Hans Ur van Balthasar's work, given on the 100th anniversary of his death. I have just begun to read some of Balthasar. I hope to read him in conjunction with Barth -- years probably to complete! There is a Christian vitality that I find in Balthasar that is somehow different from the beauty of Barth's work. To use a crass analogy, Barth is beauty of a geometric proof; Balthasar that of a Picasso painting (or a "In Reverent Fear" song!!!). Here is a quote. You can read the whole in the extended entry. It is not that long, but a bit more technical. "Christians, he said, are 'guardians of a metaphysics of the whole person in an age that has forgotten both Being and God.' They bear responsibility for keeping alive the wonder-filled love that is the point of origin for authentic human existence and includes the entire cosmos in its breadth. This wonder lies unacknowledged but alive in the child’s first opening of its eyes to its mother’s smile. Through that smile, the child learns that “it is contained, affirmed, and loved in a relationship that is incomprehensibly encompassing, sheltering, and nourishing.†The relationship, in other words, calls forth a wonder at being permitted to be. “This condition of being permitted cannot be surpassed by any additional insight into the laws and necessities of the world.†H. U. von Balthasar Love Alone by David L. Schindler* “Love Alone is Credibleâ€: these words, which appear as the title of one his books, sum up the lifework of Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, the centenary of whose birth we celebrate this year. To some, the words may seem too simple to help in our present cultural situation, with its global power blocks, consumerist economies, and “compassionate†biotechnologies. Balthasar, however, was fully aware of the complexity of today’s problems. He nevertheless understood these words to contain that truth alone which was capable of addressing the problems at their roots and not merely in their symptoms. Christians, he said, are “guardians of a metaphysics of the whole person in an age that has forgotten both Being and God.†They bear responsibility for keeping alive the wonder-filled love that is the point of origin for authentic human existence and includes the entire cosmos in its breadth. This wonder lies unacknowledged but alive in the child’s first opening of its eyes to its mother’s smile. Through that smile, the child learns that “it is contained, affirmed, and loved in a relationship that is incomprehensibly encompassing, sheltering, and nourishing.†The relationship, in other words, calls forth a wonder at being permitted to be. “This condition of being permitted cannot be surpassed by any additional insight into the laws and necessities of the world.†Balthasar’s theology of gift-evoking-wonder and wonder-evoking-gift finds its theological form in the grateful obedience of the Christic-Marian-ecclesial fiat. The phrase he coined for the basic “method†of theology is “kniende theologieâ€â€“kneeling or praying theology. Such a theology does not exclude other (e.g., historical-critical) methods, but it nonetheless includes these only as it integrates them. It is the saints, insisted Balthasar–those in whom the word of God has truly taken flesh–who alone have warrant, finally, to speak about God. Gather the treasures of Egypt It was Balthasar’s profound sense of gift, taking its beginnings from the divine communio revealed in Jesus Christ, that inspired his reading of Western culture. Indeed, Henri de Lubac, who once declared Balthasar “perhaps the most cultivated man of our time,†wrote that Balthasar’s “spiritual diagnosis of our civilization is the most penetrating to be found.†We understand the depth of this assertion only insofar as we see that the wonder lying at the origin of human existence also indicates the “logic†of that existence. That is what a creature is: a gift from God whose being unfolds most properly in grateful movement toward God, a movement meant to gather up in gratitude all that is thought, done, and produced. The characteristic problems of our culture are thus seen just here, in the absence of gratitude or grateful obedience to God. Our politics, economies, and (bio-)technologies, in their characteristic liberal expression, lack the form of creatureliness. The truth, goodness, and beauty recognized in pre-modernity as first given (by God) are now seen as first made by man (Vico: verum quia factum). Contemplation and action Balthasar was a contemplative, but not after the manner of one who was disengaged from the world. He understood that activity is empty and lacking in fruitfulness if it does not originate in contemplation, and he was thus a man of action in the Marian–and, indeed, Johannine and Ignatian–sense. Balthasar’s engagement with the world expressed itself primarily in three foundations. In 1945, together with von Speyr, he founded the Community of St. John, a “secular institute†(or “world communityâ€: Weltgemeinschaft), a community made up of priests and lay men and women living a consecrated love that remains in the world. In 1947, he established the Johannes Verlag, a publishing house devoted to making available theological, philosophical, spiritual, and literary works that draw out the Catholic and catholic meaning of Gospel love. Lastly, in 1972, with theologians Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger and others (Karol Wojtyla was instrumental later in bringing the journal to Poland), Balthasar founded the international theological-cultural review Communio, which now has fourteen different language editions. Balthasar and the Council * Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and FamilY Washington, D.C. Posted by johnwright at November 1, 2005 9:27 AM Comments
Pastor Wright, you probably already know this but in case you don't... One of the many books von Balthasar wrote was an examination of Barth from a Catholic perspective: The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation. According to Barth's biographer Eberhard Busch, Barth attended Balthasar's lectures when he could "to learn more about myself," and considered Balthasar's work "incomparably more powerful than most of the books which have clustered about me." Posted by: Chris Burgwald at November 1, 2005 1:07 PM Chris: My hope is to follow up on this. Barth claims that the only thing that kept him from becoming Catholic was the Catholic teaching (pre-Vatican II) of the analogy of being. When Balthasar developed the analogy of being through the incarnation, supposedly Barth had no response of objection. What this does is place Barth among the ressourcement theologians (de Lubac, when he refers to Barth, always does so positively), rather than as a "Protestant neo-orthodox" thinker that he is so often characterized as. Thanks for the post! John Posted by: John Wright at November 1, 2005 4:08 PM Mnsgr. Lorenzo Albacete calls Dr. David Schindler the "greatest American theologian" living today. That's quite a statement from a world class theologian himself. Ask Mnsgr. Albacete about how he got Dr. Schindler to the JPII Inst. in DC. It's a funny, but true story involving the Holy Father (JP II). Posted by: David at November 2, 2005 12:12 PM As you know, Dr. Schindler was a tenored professor at Notre Dame before moving to the JP Inst. in DC. Posted by: David at November 2, 2005 12:14 PM Notre Dame connections! John, was he there when you were there? Peace, Eric Posted by: Eric Lee at November 2, 2005 12:29 PM given on the 100th anniversary of his death. That can't be right, can it? Barth claims that the only thing that kept him from becoming Catholic was the Catholic teaching (pre-Vatican II) of the analogy of being. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Vatican II did not disavow the Thomistic exercise of attribution by analogy, which is an exercise in natural reason independent of any revealed truth (e.g., the Incarnation). I am always impressed by the Church's insistence that we use our heads to their full capacity. Posted by: Santiago at November 2, 2005 6:52 PM Oh, I think he means birth! Peace, Eric Posted by: Eric Lee at November 2, 2005 6:57 PM Yeah, that confused me too. Birth? Death? Thanks for clearing that up, Eric. Posted by: Jon Manning at November 2, 2005 7:54 PM More on analogy from W. Norris Clarke, SJ, in The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics: "Karl Barth, the famous Swiss Lutheran theologian, also denies any analogy between the language about God taught us about God by Christian revelation and that drawn by natural reason from our experience of this world. Original sin has so darkened our natural reason to the things of God that the supernatural knowledge of God give us by Christian revelation bursts in on us as a total gift from above, bringing with it the very power to understand this new divine language, accessible only to bridge the gap between God and ourselves by natural reason (philosophy) will be either helpless or idolatrous: "I regard the analogy of being as an invention of the Anti-Christ, and think that because if it one cannot become a Catholic" (Doctrine of the Word, Edinburgh, 1936, p. x). Later however, he softened his position, after his colleagues pointed out to him that he, too, was constantly using analogy implicitly, and must do so to speak any human language at all. God speaks to us through our already existing human language, transforming it but building on it." I'd be interested to hear what Pastor Wright means by a "pre-Vatican II" idea of analogy, and what he claims that Balthasar added to it by introducing a theological idea to something that is an exercise in natural reason. Obviously, the Church has not condemned, disavowed, or even discouraged such a form of reasoning--that would be like the Church saying, "don't use reason in that way." Posted by: Santiago at November 2, 2005 8:04 PM I'd also be interested, since I don't know anything whatsoever about "Radical Orthodoxy" apart from what was posted in M. Jones' blog, what sort of philosophical or ontological foundation that the R.O. theologians use as a framework to their thinking. Aidan Nichols, OP (in his article "Thomism and the Nouvelle Theologie") argues that a classical, Thomistic onotological foundation is of vital importance to sustain the work of people like Danielou, Balthasar, and de Lubac. Additionally, if one doesn't have a solid ontological foundation accessible to natural reasoning, then the theology can have bad political consequences--nasty forms of integralism or theocracy, for example, which de Lubac and Danielou abhored. From what I've read in Nichols, Danielou and de Lubac sympathized with the elements of the French republican project. Posted by: Santiago at November 2, 2005 8:09 PM **with some elements** not with "the" elements... Posted by: Santiago at November 2, 2005 9:39 PM Thanks for the conversation. Several things. David Schindler was at ND when I was there; I may have seen him walking around, if I recall. But he was not in the Department of Theology, but, I believe, in the Department of Liberal Studies -- where Michael Waldstein also taught. I knew Michael, but not David. And yes, my incompetence came through -- it was Balthasar's birth, not his death. Of course for early Christian martyrs, their 'birthday' was their death day -- much like the ghosts in Harry Potter! Finally, Santiago, thank you for helping me clear something up. Indeed, de Lubac and others did presuppose Thomas -- but they read Thomas differently, if I understand, than the neo-Scholastics that dominated Vatican II. If my understanding is correct -- and I do stand to be corrected -- in the 19th and early 20th century, Thomas' doctrine of the analogy of being was interpreted through Suarez. This lead to an analogy of univocity of being -- what was said from 'nature' could be said of God, except when applied to God, it was just a lot bigger and more complete. God's love can be known by human love, except it is more perfect in love. Barth (mis)read Thomas in this manner. What de Lubac saw, I think, is the Augustinian background for Thomas. God is Creator, Necessary Being; creation is contingent being. One cannot move from being to Being via analogy -- Thomas' analogy is one of difference. Beings participate in Being, but never in a way that allows one to move "upwards" in continuity to get to Being. Rather, analogy works by moving from Being to being, by acknowledging fundamental difference between God and creatures, not a continuous hierarchy of Being to beings. The result is always analogy characterized, not by sameness, univocity, nor equivocity (complete difference), but analogy via participation in beings existence as a gift from Being. We know God as Love through revelation (In this is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and sent God's Son for us); therefore, we know love within creation because this love participates in the gift of being that comes from its origin in Being. This development of the relationship between nature and grace was the nouvelle theologies genius -- grace is not extraneously laid upon a 'natural nature' nor did nature set the categories by which grace must appear. Humans naturally as creatures desire their true end in God through revelation; God's revelation, however, will perfects this nature, nonetheless comes not as a requirement, but as a surprise in the Son, a way not able to be predicted nor defined by fallen human nature. In other words, Barth's reading of Thomas, I believe, was wrong. This raises really interesting questions about his relationship to Catholicism. I hope to blog some on Barth in the near future. Peace, Posted by: John Wright at November 2, 2005 9:51 PM John, I think you've got it right regarding Thomas, Suarez, and de Lubac. I look forward your future posts on the implications this has for Barth. Well, what they *might* have been :-) Posted by: Chris Burgwald at November 3, 2005 9:28 AM Post a comment
|
Archives
Recent Entries
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||