Loading ...
God’s Face like a countenance beaming forth from the darkness: in order to see it we throw everything we possess into the fire — the world, our joys, our hopes. The flame leaps forth, consumes it all, and in its glow the beloved Face lights up. But the flame dies down, and we feed it with what little remains to us: honor, success, our will, the intellect, our temperament, finally our very self: absume et suscipe — “take and receive.” This is not simple self-giving but, increasingly, the knowledge that I am being taken, that I must surrender. Grace is everything: the moment of God’s appearing; grace also every sacrifice the fire snatches from me.
A Lenten quote from Balthasar
15 Responses to “A Lenten quote from Balthasar”
Comments are currently closed.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Thank you for that quote. It reminded me of some passages from St. Thomas concerning the relation between love and union:
“Union has a threefold relation to love. There is union which causes love; and this is substantial union, as regards the love with which one loves oneself; while as regards the love wherewith one loves other things, it is the union of likeness, as stated above (27, 3). There is also a union which is essentially love itself. This union is according to a bond of affection, and is likened to substantial union, inasmuch as the lover stands to the object of his love, as to himself, if it be love of friendship; as to something belonging to himself, if it be love of concupiscence. Again there is a union, which is the effect of love. This is real union, which the lover seeks with the object of his love. Moreover this union is in keeping with the demands of love: for as the Philosopher relates (Polit. ii, 1), ‘Aristophanes stated that lovers would wish to be united both into one,’ but since ‘this would result in either one or both being destroyed,’ they seek a suitable and becoming union–to live together, speak together, and be united together in other like things.” ST I-II.28.1.ad2
In a real sense, the lover must relinquish self in order to become one with the loved object.
Why are you quoting this appalling heretic? The sentiments are estimable but that can deceive the unwary into accepting von Balthasar as a Catholic theologian.
I was going to post something similar to the above as a joke, but I see someone has already beaten me to it, apparently in earnest.
Will Balthasar be added to the Society’s honor roll of saintly souls whom you love any time soon?
JSP
Von Balthasar had his moments.
Cosmic Liturgy is a really good read, and the man is obviously someone I would have liked to spend an afternoon chatting with… perhaps while listening to Mozart.
Good to hear from you, Raindear! And yes, that is an appropriate accompanying quote… though I think the Balthasar one is more poetic. :-)
Yes, I’m still a philosopher. But permit me my diversions.
Balthasar is not an appalling heretic. It is fair to discuss whether he strayed into heresy at points, but certainly much of his work is sound. I hate to tell you, but a lot of orthodox Catholic ideas have been heavily influenced by thinkers who may have had brushes with heresy (the most obvious example being Origen.) Balthasar may be the most important Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century, but in any case he is certainly in the top 5. It’s perfectly fair to quote him on a Catholic blog.
I’ve granted that he may be questionable on certain points, but I still always find it funny when people talk about him as a dangerous heretic, because I read some of his stuff before my conversion, and these are the points on which he helped convince me:
– a real Church must have sacraments
– celibacy is a higher state than marriage
– ecumenism has limitations… and Protestantism has serious defects
And I couldn’t exactly say he convinced me that contemporary scriptural scholarship is all bosh, because I recognized that on my own, but his stuff on that is still really cool.
But also, some of his more mystical writings are quite beautiful, like (I think) this quote. Again, he may have had some errors, maybe even serious errors, but I don’t think most of the people who denounce him as a dangerous heretic have much of any idea what he actually wrote.
Is there a particular work in which he criticizes historical-critical Biblical scholarship? It sounds interesting and I’d like to get a hold of that. Thanks!
Hello Clara!
Sorry, I didn’t mean to pass over or distract from the beauty of your poetic quote. (: Just wanted to explain that I especially enjoyed it because it rendered inspiring a truth I previously encountered in a more intellectual context.
Although St. Thomas has moments of poetic eloquence, more often than not, he engages the intellect with tremendous order and clarity, but without taking much trouble to move the emotions by revealing the beauty of the truth. We shan’t blame him for that, of course. Poetry is not usually effective against heresies and, no doubt, saints perceive gloria veritatis without the aid of art anyways. However, as I am neither saint nor angel of intellect purely, I appreciate and commend your diversions. This recalls another quote, this time a poem-there, now I’ve entered into the spirit more properly-I read long ago(by Emily Dickenson perhaps?). I shall have to paraphrase, but the basic notion was that some truths are too bright for the direct gaze of the human intellect; thus, art must obscure them in order that we may see them better. So, even qua philosopher, you need not apologize for poetry.
Sorry, I meant to post again on this thread, but I got busy and forgot. Brad C, if you do see this, I’m afraid I don’t know of one work of Balthasar’s devoted primarily just to skewering historical-critical scholarship (there may be one, but Balthasar wrote so much and I’m a fan but not really an expert.) Two works I do recall dealt with the relevant topics extensively, however. One is a lovely little book called Does Jesus Know Us? Do We Know Him? which is designed as an answer to the likes of Rudolph Bultmann who would place Christ behind multiple layers of historical interpretation. Like so much of his writing, this book is very spiritually uplifting as well. Another possibility is his Theology of History in which replying to historical-critical analysis is one major theme.
Raindear, I believe we understand one another perfectly. Thank you!
It’s also worth noting that we can’t say Balthasar is “a heretic” because he was never denounced as a heretic by the Church while he was living–”a heretic” is someone who perdures in heresy despite the denunciation of the Church. This is akin to the reason why St. Thomas, while his opinion on the Immaculate Conception is heretical, is not “a heretic”–the position on the Immaculate Conception had not yet been defined, and he was never denounced. Perhaps a better example would be Meister Eckhart, who held positions that after his death were condemned, but–because he died before the trial–is not called “a heretic.” He would have needed to resist the Church’s ruling, obstinantly persisting in his error.
So, if someone says Balthasar held a heretical opinion, he would nevertheless not be “a heretic” as such.
Andrew of the Holy Whapping
The above reflected what I have been told, but I went to check canon law just to be sure–
Can. 751, “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed…”
The commentary glosses that obstinant denial or doubt implies “a persistence in denial or doubting, even after warnings have been given.”
So, the accused must show themselves to be obstinant. Specifically in Balthasar’s case, given that he was nominated to the status of cardinal, it would be hard to make a case that he felt he was obstinantly persisting in the Church’s disfavor.
Andrew
I don’t know about that, Andrew. All that would mean is that he was not a public, manifest heretic. If some secret journal came out in which Balthasar said, “You know what, I’m trying to undermine a Church teaching. Sed alea jacta est,” then his proposed cardinalate would count for nothing. I think that Wyclif was condemned as a heretic after his death. They even dug up his corpse and burnt it.
I admit that my post assumed Balthasar was acting in good will. I suppose it depends how much one feels obliged to credit people that way.
Andrew otHW
Pitstick makes a good argument in “First Things” that it is difficult to ascribe inculpable ignorance to Balthasar when it comes to his teachings on the nature of Christ’s descent into hell. It comes down to: he didn’t know what he was talking about (i.e. he was an incompetent theologian), or else he willingly was operating beyond the range which the Church permits. So, you either call his intellect or his will into question. And he seems to have been a pretty smart guy . . .
I JUST FOUND YOU ! AND YOU ARE WONDERFUL ! I ADDED YOU TO MY FAVORITES. BLESS YOUR POINTED LITTLE HEADS.