"Today I saw the glory of God which flows from the image. Many souls are receiving graces, although they do not speak of it openly. Even though it has met up with all sorts of vicissitudes, God is receiving glory because of it and the efforts of Satan and of evil men are shattered and come to naught. In spite of Satan's anger The Divine Mercy will triumph over the whole world and will be worshiped by all souls." (Diary 1789)
I have started to read Theo-Drama, and as a non-academic it is not the easiest read for me. However I am starting to see glimpses of what I hoped for in Von Balthasar - ultimately spiritual food. Thank you for this video as it will help me to stick with it!
I wish you would be able to reach all the people of the world with the wisdom and deep spirituality you inspire many. At this point in time many are lost because of the I,me and myself mentality.The true real center of our lives should be God as you have emphasized. There is peace,real joy, understanding, and justice by having our focus on Him and the power of His love that we receive from His heart that we are called to give generously to others. .Thank you for your beautiful and enlightening talk....you are an inspiration to us.
Balthasar takes divine judgment far more seriously than those who would cancel him as a heretic. When you pass out scarlet letters like candy, you trivialize judgment. It becomes so trivial that you cannot imagine having to answer even for your own hit and run tactics. In contrast, Balthasar repeatedly asserts: "we stand under judgment." His trolls don’t know this leitmotif because they can’t be bothered to read someone before condemning him. The magisterium (the real one, not RUclips) has never been bashful about naming heretics. JP2, with a bloodhound’s nose for heresy, was so alarmed by Balthasar that he ... made him a cardinal. On the other hand, the magisterium has never named occupants of hell. Doesn’t mean hell is empty, but this visceral aversion to condemnation is just what the doctor orders for those who would poison the well of the church fathers to any who might come and drink. That's their intent, anyway, but instead they drive readers in droves to Balthasar ... His theology of Holy Saturday is speculative and open to challenge and eventual correction (or acceptance). Not sure how the magisterium might ultimately come down. But this theology is driven by a basic question we too must answer with fear and trembling: what was Christ's purpose and mission? Giving our answer, we then begin to wrestle with the 2 biblical pictures of that mission's outcome, universalist and exclusive. Because we stand under judgment we cannot reconcile these pictures, Balthasar says. His detractors reconcile them over morning coffee and donuts (or pretend one set of passages doesn’t exist or mean what it says). If you think Christ’s purpose was retribution or revenge, you get both pictures wrong (a facile universalism fails too). JP2 and B16 therefore dropped Trent's innovations concerning hell, reasserting the scriptural and patristic teaching that arrival in hell is not by God’s action but one’s own, by what one loves (John 3:19). Hell is thus defined with respect to Christ's presence: it pains some, soothes others. But He himself is undivided and wills one thing: the salvation of all. Still, universalism can't be asserted via purely conceptual necessity. Balthasar is right that it is a matter, for we who stand under judgment, of hope not knowledge. The church calls us to hope. Balthasar's despisers approach this calling from a different angle. They could write a book about it: "Dare We Hope To Escape Accountability?"
As a practicing Catholic for me universalism is the only way for me to see Christ now.I’m waiting for the church to proclaim this which I think it will in my lifetime,it’s the only way to do justice to the saving power of the cross,nothing else will do!! John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 - “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.” John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 - “The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
Balthasar was an innovator in a time when innovation, ANY innovation, was warmly embraced. "The most disconcerting feature of Balthasar's hope for universal salvation is that its logic appears to require an assumption of Christ's ignorance and fallibility." www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3344&CFID=55734392 The Church was emasculated by such innovation, and now we are left with pews full of old ladies much like the Protestant denominations. The Church Militant must awaken from the dreams woven by imaginative innovators like Balthasar. Saint Thomas More also indulged in innovative ideas, but he recognized them as fictional musings and never confused them with reality. Balthasar's speculations are simply being inflated beyond their true measure by acolytes of innovation.
***** Your analogy is weak. A stronger analogy is a Cafeteria Catholic who claims to be Pro Life and uses birth control. In other words Balthasar, like many who are paid by the Church, was forced to sprinkle his writings with disclaimers in order to avoid being silenced. The disclaimers are absolutely at odds with his theme, yet his advocates are easily capable of performing the Newspeak mental gymnastics required. A reasoned analysis of Balthasar's writings would not ignore his hypocrisy. Fan fiction depicts Balthasar as traditionalist superhero who insults Church tradition and wins traditionalist support. In fact, he is a Modernist who uses traditional Church lingo to bamboozle the dimwitted.
***** It is Newspeak in that he speaks in a flowery code. In fact, he speaks like a Gnostic. He gives poetry to the poets, and dissatisfaction to the dissenters. All the intellectuals have lined up behind him, and you count yourself among them. Well, that is the Modernist method of determining the truth of a matter: take a poll. There's no need for you to defend your position, the weight of proof is all upon me, right? How convenient for you! It's a great place to be. So warm and comfy. Is this your method of proving Balthasar's arguments, by personifying the "empty shell" of orthodoxy? If so, you are making a compelling argument. You champion him because authorities have told you he is a holy man. That's Modernism. Balthasar is a Humanist who attracts Modernists. His writings are Modernistic. He trades relativisms and discards absolutes, especially Medieval absolutes (which are still, I assure you, our absolutes). “But now that the world has become spherical, there is no longer any place from which one’s gaze can take in everything; one must set oneself in motion: the only way to explore the land of truth is by changing one’s standpoint.” "The land of truth". You probably like that very much. You probably think that's deep. Theology is about logic. It is a science. Poetry that pretends to be theology is beneath contempt. Perhaps Balthasar has provided dilettantes who can't get the hang of syllogisms a way to participate, but we don't have to take them too seriously, do we? "The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves" is an essay in which Balthasar begins by damning the Fathers of the Church with faint praise, then he deconstructs the historical basis behind their writings, and finally he throws them under the bus. He tells us that while we can use the Fathers of the Church as a useful icon, their writings are "distorted by any rationalization" that "covered up" the "unadulterated fountain". Why read ancient texts (maybe in Latin!) when you can sit back with a cool glass of Balthasar and enjoy the "primitive tradition" (echoes of Calvin?) from the "unadulterated fountain" (certainly Protestant). “It is important to know that this feeling of a ‘double truth’, which usually comes on precisely the best and most enthusiastic students, is not the sign of something improper. The two perspectives that split apart here can no more be made to coincide with one another than can divine and human truth, Church and world, or the divine and the human natures in Christ and the manner of knowledge proper to each of these natures in him. The Christian is charged absolutely to bear this tension and extension, but also increasingly to bring it under control and to clear a path for himself through it.” For a true Christian, of course, such a thing is impossible. There can be no contradiction between divine and human truth. Any idea, system of ideas, religion, or intellectual discipline which runs contrary to the revealed Gospel of Christ is simply false. Perhaps you have been hypnotized by Balthasar's gratuitous use of poetic imagery and dense metaphors. I have noticed that many people when they can't understand someone simply cheer (when they are an approved source) or jeer (when the current winds are against).
***** No, I think we are making a lot of progress here. You object to my tone and you are a Modernist. You defend Modernism as "back to the texts for fresh insights but without rejecting later stages of the Tradition." If you think that Modernism is good, then of course you will love Balthasar! He was a Modernist. You are a Modernist. This is a marriage of convenience. So, mystery solved. Please inform your compatriots that Balthasar is a Modernist. It will save time. Now we must shift our discussion to your defense of Modernism. Since you claim that so many (unnamed) popes support your "fresh" insights, perhaps I might add one on my side. THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. "I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord. "Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents. "Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. "I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God." I wonder why St. Pius X created The Oath Against Modernism if it's so good? Modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas. It means pandering to the current fashions instead of doing what is right. Protestantism is founded on Modernism, that is, the desire to forget the past. Rationalizations in place of Reason. Modernism is the abandonment of all that is sacred and holy. There is a kind of intellectual entropy in theological circles that seeks the lowest common denominator between existing faiths. It's driven by laziness, lack of courage and pride. In other words - Modernism. Modernism has taken God out of the realm of truth and put Him into the category of opinion. Modernism is a malaise that strikes down civilizations, and we have been thoroughly afflicted. Another symptom of Modernism is relying upon the pronouncements of "experts". Modernism is the excessive and slavish love of what is new because it is new. The newness of the totem may be its only charm, but that is all that is necessary for a modernist to love it. Consequently, there is a competition to find the newest idea before anyone else finds it. This results in a headlong pursuit of imaginative writers, theoretical scientists, financial schemers and practical inventors by trend-following modernists. They substitute their own personal taste and intellectual integrity for the fad of the day. Modernists assume that the new is always more correct than the old. This is how they determine right from wrong: the new must be right, and the old must be wrong. Their pursuit of the newest fad is their way of pursuing truth. They think they will always be in the right in any disagreement as long as they espouse the newest theory. If they discover a newer theory, they immediately discard their current beliefs in favor of this new idea. Consensus is also important to them because fads are determined by the number of adherents. The trick of the modernist is to be always ahead of the curve. Once a fad becomes popular, the modernist must already be in hot pursuit of the next fad. The only mistake a modernist can make is being slow to adopt an up and coming fad. Modernists dream of breaking free from the restraints of traditional society because tradition is not new, and therefore bad. They fling themselves into disaster while traditionalists prefer to live decent and dignified lives of quiet tragedy. Now you know about Modernism. Hopefully, you will now cool your fervor for such an ignoble deficiency, even if you must maintain your ardor for Modernism's ninja warrior, Balthasar.
@Lux Aeterna Balthazar "praised the genius of Luther". He was a modernist heretic. You would understand this if you read his concept of human sin being different to that of virtually every Catholic teaching throughout history. Summing up, he believed all our sins are "loaded onto Christ" and have been abstracted from the sinner, therefore removing all wrath and guilt and due punishment for our sins. With this heretical belief, neither confirmed by Scripture nor Tradition, nor Dogma, man ceases to be a poor sinner who has need of redemption obtained through faith and Baptism.
Von Balthazar’s teachings are based on the mystic he promoted Adrienne Von speyr and especially on her version of the decent into Hell by Jesus which is contrary to the council of Trent which says Jesus descended into the paradise of the bosom of Abraham the hell of waiting, and Bishop challenor wrote on this too, St. John of the cross warned of trusting in mysticism.
"Precisely because God in Christ gave himself up to the power of darkness and all destructive cosmic powers, he thereby made the Eucharist-flesh consumed, blood poured out-to be a communion between what appears absolutely mutually exclusive" - von Balthasar. You heard it here, folks: Christ gave himself up to Satan and made possible a communion between the "absoltuely mutually exclusive", by which Hans means Heaven and Hell.
Not a peep here about the most significant theologian, also a fellow Swiss who, along with Karl Barth are the key philosopher-theologians of the 20th Century. I speak of none other than the late Hans Kung, who broke with Ratzinger along the lines of what a truly progressive Catholic Christianity credo should be. Silenced from his teaching position at Univ. of Tubingen, it is Hans Kung who will yet prove to be the most valuable theologian for the future survival of Catholicism in our already catastrophic 21st Century.
@@johncollins8304 He was never denounced as a heretic - some of his particular theses were deemed unorthodox or heretical, but he never was branded as a heretical thinker (there is a difference here), AFAIK.
John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 - “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.” John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 - “The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
I didn't hear anything with regards to how much Hans Urs von Balthasar was in error. It should be a disclaimer that he was a heretic, in order to give people caution before reading his work. This is quite irresponsible your excellency, souls can be led astray. "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." The constrictive nature of truth is a tough pill to swallow.
I've never cared for German philosophy or theology. It's opposed, I think, to ancient near eastern thinking, which is what Scripture was founded upon, and the opposite of the type of thinking Christ made use of. Germans are great at building cars and highways, but not so great at philosophy and theology... in my humble opinion : )
***** German philosophers and theologians are great constructivist of systems be it in philosophy and theology, that always amaze our intellectual interests. But that is how far systems can go: it falls after it flies so high. I agree to your statement that "German thinking is opposed to ancient near eastern thinking". This is maybe because German intellectual perspicacity has too great an energy reserve that it speculates more than what realism allows.
What a lovely Easter gift to hear this wondeful comment on HUvB life and the process of his deep discovery of Truth In our Redeemer. Thank you Fr.Barron.
Everybody has their own theology. King Henry V111 had his own theology. Roman Catholisizm has it's own theology. Greek Orthodox, Baptist, and a thousand others. One has to read the Bible for themselves.
"Today I saw the glory of God which flows from the image. Many souls are receiving graces, although they do not speak of it openly. Even though it has met up with all sorts of vicissitudes, God is receiving glory because of it and the efforts of Satan and of evil men are shattered and come to naught. In spite of Satan's anger The Divine Mercy will triumph over the whole world and will be worshiped by all souls." (Diary 1789)
I have started to read Theo-Drama, and as a non-academic it is not the easiest read for me. However I am starting to see glimpses of what I hoped for in Von Balthasar - ultimately spiritual food. Thank you for this video as it will help me to stick with it!
I wish you would be able to reach all the people of the world with the wisdom and deep spirituality you inspire many. At this point in time many are lost because of the I,me and myself mentality.The true real center of our lives should be God as you have emphasized. There is peace,real joy, understanding, and justice by having our focus on Him and the power of His love that we receive from His heart that we are called to give generously to others. .Thank you for your beautiful and enlightening talk....you are an inspiration to us.
I have tried to read Balthasar's works, but they're too difficult for me to understand. I'm glad you are trying to explain him and his works.
Read “Prayer” it’s masterfully written for non scholars. So beautiful.
Dude, I just noticed the collection of Flannery O'Connor's letters on your bookshelf. I love Flannery O'Connor.
Travvis Todd that’s exactly what I was going to comment! I’m fully invested in them currently and loving every step of the journey
Obispo Robert Barron, su enseñanza es muy importante, para la iglesia católica, podrían, habilitar en español, sus cátedras?, gracias
Well done. You are a fine teacher, Bishop Barron... and Heaven knows, we need more of that!
@@kathyharbison2774 I will have to do more study. Thank you.
Very well done! Would you please consider doing an episode on the theology of Karl Barth?
Wow! I have a big PILE of books to read. And now this?
This was really excellent Fr. Barron, thank you for such a thorough history. I'm looking forward to the next one!
Balthasar takes divine judgment far more seriously than those who would cancel him as a heretic. When you pass out scarlet letters like candy, you trivialize judgment. It becomes so trivial that you cannot imagine having to answer even for your own hit and run tactics. In contrast, Balthasar repeatedly asserts: "we stand under judgment." His trolls don’t know this leitmotif because they can’t be bothered to read someone before condemning him. The magisterium (the real one, not RUclips) has never been bashful about naming heretics. JP2, with a bloodhound’s nose for heresy, was so alarmed by Balthasar that he ... made him a cardinal. On the other hand, the magisterium has never named occupants of hell. Doesn’t mean hell is empty, but this visceral aversion to condemnation is just what the doctor orders for those who would poison the well of the church fathers to any who might come and drink. That's their intent, anyway, but instead they drive readers in droves to Balthasar ... His theology of Holy Saturday is speculative and open to challenge and eventual correction (or acceptance). Not sure how the magisterium might ultimately come down. But this theology is driven by a basic question we too must answer with fear and trembling: what was Christ's purpose and mission? Giving our answer, we then begin to wrestle with the 2 biblical pictures of that mission's outcome, universalist and exclusive. Because we stand under judgment we cannot reconcile these pictures, Balthasar says. His detractors reconcile them over morning coffee and donuts (or pretend one set of passages doesn’t exist or mean what it says). If you think Christ’s purpose was retribution or revenge, you get both pictures wrong (a facile universalism fails too). JP2 and B16 therefore dropped Trent's innovations concerning hell, reasserting the scriptural and patristic teaching that arrival in hell is not by God’s action but one’s own, by what one loves (John 3:19). Hell is thus defined with respect to Christ's presence: it pains some, soothes others. But He himself is undivided and wills one thing: the salvation of all. Still, universalism can't be asserted via purely conceptual necessity. Balthasar is right that it is a matter, for we who stand under judgment, of hope not knowledge. The church calls us to hope. Balthasar's despisers approach this calling from a different angle. They could write a book about it: "Dare We Hope To Escape Accountability?"
Bishop, I would also include Henri De Lubac with your list of theologians that affected the Vatican Council II.
He would definitely agree with you.
Bishop Barron mentioned him. De Lubac was the one who introduce Von Balthasar
to patristics and scriptures in theology
Also Yves Congar when it comes to influence on Vatican II
Very interesting background on him. Thank you.
As a practicing Catholic for me universalism is the only way for me to see Christ now.I’m waiting for the church to proclaim this which I think it will in my lifetime,it’s the only way to do justice to the saving power of the cross,nothing else will do!!
John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 -
“Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and
therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is
redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’
by means of Grace.”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 -
“The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
😂😭
Hey Father, would you do a video on "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" I found that to be a great book about the Council.
Awesome, could you do one on Jacques Maritian? Awesome video though, I do enjoy Balthasar !!
Thanks much for this video.
Balthasar was an innovator in a time when innovation, ANY innovation, was warmly embraced.
"The most disconcerting feature of Balthasar's hope for universal salvation is that its logic appears to require an assumption of Christ's ignorance and fallibility."
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3344&CFID=55734392
The Church was emasculated by such innovation, and now we are left with pews full of old ladies much like the Protestant denominations. The Church Militant must awaken from the dreams woven by imaginative innovators like Balthasar. Saint Thomas More also indulged in innovative ideas, but he recognized them as fictional musings and never confused them with reality. Balthasar's speculations are simply being inflated beyond their true measure by acolytes of innovation.
***** Your analogy is weak. A stronger analogy is a Cafeteria Catholic who claims to be Pro Life and uses birth control.
In other words Balthasar, like many who are paid by the Church, was forced to sprinkle his writings with disclaimers in order to avoid being silenced. The disclaimers are absolutely at odds with his theme, yet his advocates are easily capable of performing the Newspeak mental gymnastics required.
A reasoned analysis of Balthasar's writings would not ignore his hypocrisy. Fan fiction depicts Balthasar as traditionalist superhero who insults Church tradition and wins traditionalist support.
In fact, he is a Modernist who uses traditional Church lingo to bamboozle the dimwitted.
***** It is Newspeak in that he speaks in a flowery code. In fact, he speaks like a Gnostic. He gives poetry to the poets, and dissatisfaction to the dissenters. All the intellectuals have lined up behind him, and you count yourself among them.
Well, that is the Modernist method of determining the truth of a matter: take a poll. There's no need for you to defend your position, the weight of proof is all upon me, right? How convenient for you! It's a great place to be. So warm and comfy. Is this your method of proving Balthasar's arguments, by personifying the "empty shell" of orthodoxy? If so, you are making a compelling argument.
You champion him because authorities have told you he is a holy man. That's Modernism. Balthasar is a Humanist who attracts Modernists. His writings are Modernistic. He trades relativisms and discards absolutes, especially Medieval absolutes (which are still, I assure you, our absolutes).
“But now that the world has become spherical, there is no longer any place from which one’s gaze can take in everything; one must set oneself in motion: the only way to explore the land of truth is by changing one’s standpoint.”
"The land of truth". You probably like that very much. You probably think that's deep. Theology is about logic. It is a science. Poetry that pretends to be theology is beneath contempt. Perhaps Balthasar has provided dilettantes who can't get the hang of syllogisms a way to participate, but we don't have to take them too seriously, do we?
"The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves" is an essay in which Balthasar begins by damning the Fathers of the Church with faint praise, then he deconstructs the historical basis behind their writings, and finally he throws them under the bus. He tells us that while we can use the Fathers of the Church as a useful icon, their writings are "distorted by any rationalization" that "covered up" the "unadulterated fountain". Why read ancient texts (maybe in Latin!) when you can sit back with a cool glass of Balthasar and enjoy the "primitive tradition" (echoes of Calvin?) from the "unadulterated fountain" (certainly Protestant).
“It is important to know that this feeling of a ‘double truth’, which usually comes on precisely the best and most enthusiastic students, is not the sign of something improper. The two perspectives that split apart here can no more be made to coincide with one another than can divine and human truth, Church and world, or the divine and the human natures in Christ and the manner of knowledge proper to each of these natures in him. The Christian is charged absolutely to bear this tension and extension, but also increasingly to bring it under control and to clear a path for himself through it.”
For a true Christian, of course, such a thing is impossible. There can be no contradiction between divine and human truth. Any idea, system of ideas, religion, or intellectual discipline which runs contrary to the revealed Gospel of Christ is simply false.
Perhaps you have been hypnotized by Balthasar's gratuitous use of poetic imagery and dense metaphors. I have noticed that many people when they can't understand someone simply cheer (when they are an approved source) or jeer (when the current winds are against).
***** No, I think we are making a lot of progress here. You object to my tone and you are a Modernist. You defend Modernism as "back to the texts for fresh insights but without rejecting later stages of the Tradition."
If you think that Modernism is good, then of course you will love Balthasar! He was a Modernist. You are a Modernist. This is a marriage of convenience. So, mystery solved. Please inform your compatriots that Balthasar is a Modernist. It will save time.
Now we must shift our discussion to your defense of Modernism. Since you claim that so many (unnamed) popes support your "fresh" insights, perhaps I might add one on my side.
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
"I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
"Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
"Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
"I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."
I wonder why St. Pius X created The Oath Against Modernism if it's so good?
Modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas. It means pandering to the current fashions instead of doing what is right. Protestantism is founded on Modernism, that is, the desire to forget the past. Rationalizations in place of Reason. Modernism is the abandonment of all that is sacred and holy.
There is a kind of intellectual entropy in theological circles that seeks the lowest common denominator between existing faiths. It's driven by laziness, lack of courage and pride. In other words - Modernism. Modernism has taken God out of the realm of truth and put Him into the category of opinion. Modernism is a malaise that strikes down civilizations, and we have been thoroughly afflicted. Another symptom of Modernism is relying upon the pronouncements of "experts".
Modernism is the excessive and slavish love of what is new because it is new. The newness of the totem may be its only charm, but that is all that is necessary for a modernist to love it. Consequently, there is a competition to find the newest idea before anyone else finds it. This results in a headlong pursuit of imaginative writers, theoretical scientists, financial schemers and practical inventors by trend-following modernists. They substitute their own personal taste and intellectual integrity for the fad of the day. Modernists assume that the new is always more correct than the old. This is how they determine right from wrong: the new must be right, and the old must be wrong. Their pursuit of the newest fad is their way of pursuing truth. They think they will always be in the right in any disagreement as long as they espouse the newest theory. If they discover a newer theory, they immediately discard their current beliefs in favor of this new idea. Consensus is also important to them because fads are determined by the number of adherents. The trick of the modernist is to be always ahead of the curve. Once a fad becomes popular, the modernist must already be in hot pursuit of the next fad. The only mistake a modernist can make is being slow to adopt an up and coming fad.
Modernists dream of breaking free from the restraints of traditional society because tradition is not new, and therefore bad. They fling themselves into disaster while traditionalists prefer to live decent and dignified lives of quiet tragedy.
Now you know about Modernism. Hopefully, you will now cool your fervor for such an ignoble deficiency, even if you must maintain your ardor for Modernism's ninja warrior, Balthasar.
@Lux Aeterna Balthazar "praised the genius of Luther". He was a modernist heretic. You would understand this if you read his concept of human sin being different to that of virtually every Catholic teaching throughout history. Summing up, he believed all our sins are "loaded onto Christ" and have been abstracted from the sinner, therefore removing all wrath and guilt and due punishment for our sins. With this heretical belief, neither confirmed by Scripture nor Tradition, nor Dogma, man ceases to be a poor sinner who has need of redemption obtained through faith and Baptism.
Dear Bishop Barron, please make a video for Adrienne von Speyr as well. Thank you and God bless
Von Balthazar’s teachings are based on the mystic he promoted Adrienne Von speyr and especially on her version of the decent into Hell by Jesus which is contrary to the council of Trent which says Jesus descended into the paradise of the bosom of Abraham the hell of waiting, and Bishop challenor wrote on this too, St. John of the cross warned of trusting in mysticism.
IM SO INTRIGUED IT HURTS
Why is Fr Barron never boring? Heck, he's a priest!
Really enjoyed this. Thank you. I hope you will do a segment on Rahner as well. Blessings.
ruclips.net/video/fyJ_EX1UPtA/видео.html
There’s another German theologian who had a virulent hatred of scholasticism.
Martin Luther.
Great video
"Precisely because God in Christ gave himself up to the power of darkness and all destructive cosmic powers, he thereby made the Eucharist-flesh consumed, blood poured out-to be a communion between what appears absolutely mutually exclusive" - von Balthasar. You heard it here, folks: Christ gave himself up to Satan and made possible a communion between the "absoltuely mutually exclusive", by which Hans means Heaven and Hell.
Paul Tillich please! !!
Not a peep here about the most significant theologian, also a fellow Swiss who, along with Karl Barth are the key philosopher-theologians of the 20th Century. I speak of none other than the late Hans Kung, who broke with Ratzinger along the lines of what a truly progressive Catholic Christianity credo should be. Silenced from his teaching position at Univ. of Tubingen, it is Hans Kung who will yet prove to be the most valuable theologian for the future survival of Catholicism in our already catastrophic 21st Century.
Very informative indeed - now I wonder, if you will make also one on Teilhard de Chardin in the future?
Thank you
Yes, on that heretic, too.
@@johncollins8304 He was never denounced as a heretic - some of his particular theses were deemed unorthodox or heretical, but he never was branded as a heretical thinker (there is a difference here), AFAIK.
Very interesting :)
Are there any that are becoming very important in the late 20th to early 21st century?
You are such a blessing
Cuanto provecho haría esto en idioma español.-
I find quite odd not to mention Adrienne von Speyr ...
Listened again my assertion is incorrect! Forgive me!
He did.
Robert Little I'm sorry, I'm listening apparently inattentive, or walked away right then. Mea culpa!
John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 -
“Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and
therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is
redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’
by means of Grace.”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 -
“The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
Can you spell the last name of Adrian the mystic ? I want more information but I cannot find it
Adrienne von Speyr
Dr Karen Kilby is maad at you!
beatles went to Germany
and Thomas mor
seems like important in a bad way...
Von Balthasar for the altars, yeah!!!
ruclips.net/video/fyJ_EX1UPtA/видео.html
I didn't hear anything with regards to how much Hans Urs von Balthasar was in error. It should be a disclaimer that he was a heretic, in order to give people caution before reading his work. This is quite irresponsible your excellency, souls can be led astray.
"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat."
The constrictive nature of truth is a tough pill to swallow.
Souls have and continue to be led astray by the new theology.
St. Thomas is a giant of the Church. You say his name like it is a curse word
what?
Can we change the music? Its too hip..
Beware of "trolls" Father
kind of meandering
I've never cared for German philosophy or theology. It's opposed, I think, to ancient near eastern thinking, which is what Scripture was founded upon, and the opposite of the type of thinking Christ made use of. Germans are great at building cars and highways, but not so great at philosophy and theology... in my humble opinion : )
***** German philosophers and theologians are great constructivist of systems be it in philosophy and theology, that always amaze our intellectual interests. But that is how far systems can go: it falls after it flies so high. I agree to your statement that "German thinking is opposed to ancient near eastern thinking". This is maybe because German intellectual perspicacity has too great an energy reserve that it speculates more than what realism allows.
I suggest cardinal Yves Congar be the greatest theologian in our time
Very disappointed. Never thought would hear this from you. Von Balthasar is in error.
Is there a counter-argument in my future?
You're wrong.
u assume God
You can't beat the SJ'S!
What a lovely Easter gift to hear this wondeful comment on HUvB life and the process of his deep discovery of Truth In our Redeemer. Thank you Fr.Barron.
Everybody has their own theology. King Henry V111 had his own theology. Roman Catholisizm has it's own theology. Greek Orthodox, Baptist, and a thousand others. One has to read the Bible for themselves.
Yeah, to make up your own theology. Brilliant.
john collins it’s funny how Protestants say things like this despite the fact that Jesus never once said interpret this how you like.
gandi