Andrew otHW

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

So, if someone says Balthasar held a heretical opinion, he would nevertheless not be “a heretic” as such.

Andrew of the Holy Whapping

Raindear, I believe we understand one another perfectly. Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

JSP

“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.