Razing the Bastions Notes: A Quick Tour of a Destructive Cryptic Work
Notes By Matthew J Bellisario 2020 O.P.
All quotes are taken directly from Ignatius Press 1993 edition, San Francisco, 'Razing the Bastion's (1952) Hans Urs von Balthasar.
I hear around me
partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the
universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful
for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church
of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb. (Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope
Pius XII circa 1933)
This brief notation of the book 'Razing the Bastions' is meant to give you a quick overview of the book. It is not a full refutation of the book which would comprise a much lengthier work. In this post, I make a few brief critical comments about some of the quotes as I progressed through the book. In most places, I have placed page numbers for you for reference. All quotes are in italics. Please keep in the forefront of your mind the quote above as you read! In my opinion this one of the most dangerous and arrogant theological works of our time. It is quoted by several popular theologians today.
Why have I taken the time to write this? If you want to understand where many today get their ideas of the Church in relation to the world after Vatican II, you can begin here in this cryptic work. Although this little 100-page book is only the tip of the iceberg concerning von Balthasar's work, it does give his idea of the Church and the direction he wanted it to head just a decade before the Council. Although he was not present at the Council, his strange ideas certainly were and unfortunately, they still are found in the Church today. This book also gives a glimpse into the reason why Bishop Robert Barron feels he can adhere to an "Open Thomism." He is only following in his hero's footsteps in trying to morph modern philosophy with Thomism, which ends up being no Thomism at all. This book although quoted often is not read often so I thought this would be the next best thing for Catholics who will never read it to nevertheless get a good idea about its contents. A word of warning, if you intend to read any works written by von Balthasar I suggest you get a good glass of Scotch before you begin because if you are grounded in the perennial Thomistic philosophy you are going to need it.
 |
| Pope Pius XII, Pray For Us! |
Chapter One: Departure
Theme: An awakening of humanity to a global awareness and recognizing a Church that is unequipped to ascertain joining humanity in her “cosmic” situation and task.
This task is a “transcendence from within” in order to
engage the modern world. This transcendence includes a radical attack on the
medieval Church and an outright rejection of our Christian heritage.
Balthasar claims that the Church instead of looking at new modes
of thought, is instead stuck in the past looking and analyzing its own “tradition.”
“Perhaps she continued
all too long after the Reformation to hand on the old intellectual framework of
the middle ages.” P18
On page 19 he claims that this tradition is that of which is
handed on through the Church as oral tradition. He then insults the laity and
makes it seem that only the elites like himself are capable of understanding
what tradition is.
“ And since the
theological determination of what may have been entrusted to the Church as
revelation, outside of Scripture, is complicated, disputed and difficult to
grasp (especially for laypeople), the laity will always be inclined to equate
or confuse the theological principle of tradition with a more general Catholic
preference for handing on what already exists.”
The insult continues. “This
confusion affects all the forms- spiritual and worldly, liturgical, political
and social- that have been carried along in the great river of history as its
detritus, from late antiquity into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: from
Greek philosophy, the Constantinian order of state and Church, the realm of
Charlemagne; from classical, medieval and humanist education up to the French
Revolution and beyond.” P19-20.
Please note that he equates what the laity retains from these periods as "detritus", that is what he perceives as waste, debris, or rubbish flowing down the river of time from antiquity and the middle ages.
Balthasar sees a need to discard all of this waste, “But all of this meets the eye of the approaching age as something bracketed off-not only as all historical being that has its time and has had it, and then, belonging to the past, can no longer make any straightforward claim of belonging to the future, but still more as a period that is withdrawing from us, closing itself…it is like a tree which would, at the end, condense itself into a seed once more…” P20
The author then says that holiness through the Holy Spirit
is the answer to all this. Who could argue against such a premise? Balthasar then implies that any opposition to his theory as being contrary to the Holy Spirit. He equates himself and those like him
as “new prophets” along the lines of the apostles of the New Testament. P24-25.
“Through its
opposition we see that tradition is continually in danger of becoming “Old
Testament” and pharisaic; the ever-new gift of holiness to the Church is the
mildest judgment God can send down upon His bride.” P25
How often do we hear talk of this pharisaic tradition today by prominent members of the hierarchy?
His arrogance continues, “And
what a dryness there is in the doctrine about Christ, which likewise has made
scarcely any progress since Chalcedon, where an abstract formula has to answer
for the central mystery.” P29
Balthasar increasingly shows throughout this work that his
aim is to prove that theology is progressive and that even dogmatic formulas
are not necessarily useful. Rather than explain a foundational formula in a manner in which it can be understood in today's culture, the
author would rather create a new one or simply throw it away. Furthermore, think about how much arrogance it takes to refer to the great theologians such as Augustine, the Church fathers, and many other Saints of the past as dry, half-witted sketch artists leaving half-congealed pieces of theological art laying about! Only Balthasar and his elite theologians are capable of painting a true theological masterpiece. One that no one can understand but them!
"…every formula that is discovered must be transparent to the event both of then and of today; it is to be made use of to the extent that it permits what was then to become reality today, and left unused to the extent that it impedes this. In the many complicated systems of thought, perhaps only one thing remains vital today: namely, that in them we can discover what other ages knew about concerning the overwhelming mystery of God. Where this can no longer be discerned, the systems quite deserve to be utterly forgotten.” P33
He then stresses the importance of not the
person relating directly to God in an objective manner, but as a relationship
to an event. Neglecting the fact that Christ for example Himself handed on the truths of Himself which then would be also handed down via the
apostles, through the ages faithfully, he regards this reality as a progressive
unveiling which must be thought out anew in our time.
“A truth that is merely handed on, without being thought anew from its
very foundations, has lost its vital power. The vessel holds it- for example,
the language, the world of images, concepts-becomes dusty, rusts, crumbles
away; that which is old remains young only when it is drawn, with all its
strength of youth, into relation which is still older, with that in time which
is perpetual: the present-day revelation of God… in thoughts and points of
view, themes and ideas, where people are content to understand tradition as the
handing-on of ready-made results. Boredom manifests itself at once, and the
neatest systematics fails to convince, remains of little consequence.” P33-34
For Balthasar the Catholic faith handed on consistently in the Church for 2000 years is boring and unconvincing. Rather than bring the perennial teaching to the people of our time, he would rather do away with it and create a new framework. It's not like we can't explain and use images of the past effectively in today's culture. It begs the question!
Balthasar has a strong distaste for anything that goes
against his idea of his revolutionary theology which must adapt to the times.
His contempt for anything that gets in his way also explains why he hates medieval architecture. He insults the beautiful cathedrals of the middle ages
which give so much glory to God by saying,
“The church buildings
of that time (such a heavy burden for our acts of worship today, since it is
impossible or very difficult to realize the liturgy in them as a community
celebration) at best allowed only the lay elite into the most sacred precincts,
while the people had to remain in the back. P38
This gives us an insight to the demolishment of our beautiful churches after Vatican II and the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass. Again, this statement smacks of sheer arrogance.
Pages 40 and 41 speak of the legitimate development of Marian theology but mistakenly uses this example to justify his idea of what must happen to the rest of theology. This misapplication of the development of doctrine results however in tearing down rather than building up or going deeper into a theological premise in an organic manner. There is little to nothing organic in Balthasar’s theological developmental approach. He wants a revolution not an organic development.
He then compares the modern age to that of the early Church
to which it apparently has never progressed passed the “congealed” theology of the
early Church, “The intellectual situation of the Church has perhaps never been
so open, so full of promise and so pregnant with the future at any time since
the first three centuries.” P 41
Apparently, our author believes the world and humanity had been progressing since the middle ages, but the Church was still stuck in the third century. He fails to see the other rich organic development of theology in the Church leading up to his time. Regarding the Trinity, he fails to see that what has been defined in the early Councils which is still held in high regard is due to the limitation of human intellectual and spiritual limitations instigated by God. We cannot know everything about the Trinity, and every area of theology does not have to develop at the same depth and timeframe as he claims it should. God does this as He pleases with what He reveals to us and when regarding the development of theology. It is not on a time schedule.
While our
great pope Pius XII once said that we must as a Church embrace our Christian
history, Balthasar wants it to be shattered and destroyed!
“What must at all costs be shattered is the historical
consciousness of Christians, a consciousness which has become senile because
the pulse that in it is a pulse of insufficient faith.” P43
How much more insulting and arrogant can you be in making
such a statement? All of those in the Church immediately before the great Balthasar arrived are now senile nitwits lacking good faith.
The first chapter closes then on the note of departing from
the past, especially anything that recalls any thought of the middle ages.
Chapter 2: Descent
Theme: The failure of the past Church and the necessity of a new way.
In this chapter, Balthasar focuses on what he sees as the
complete failure of the Church. He claims that the Church herself denied its
own obedience of faith to the commandment of Christ due to the Protestant
revolt. He then offers a new way, which no one other than himself and the elites like himself apparently
understands. Don't feel bad if you have to read these passages like 3 times over, to which you will still scratch your head in amazement as to his cryptic ideas.
He says, “Through the division of faith, Christianity had
refuted itself…now other towers rise up, and as time passes it becomes
increasingly difficult to determine whether these are spiritual or worldly
towers…What is called the Counter-Reformation, strictly speaking was still too
dominated by the determination to carry on as long as possible the medieval
order.” P50-51
His solution, “The way
ahead must lie in the intellectual domain: a path defined negatively by two
solutions neither of which can be followed. The first is the solution of an
absolutism of the truth, which does not understand the new situation of
solidarity, but wishes to deal with the people of our time on the same level of
consciousness that characters medieval absolutism. The other is the religious
relativism of the Enlightenment: the very understandable and initially
unavoidable reaction to that absolutism and to the new situation created by
mankind’s discoveries in space and time…this reaction ow understands all forms
of religion as meaningful, justified and complementary to one another on
various levels of relationship to total truth. Now, if the path between these
two is to be the correct path, it cannot consist of a compromise between them.
It must bring to the surface a truth and an attitude that, as a Catholic truth
and attitude, display to the world a clear, defined and unmistakable
countenance. One must not be surprised that this new Catholic attitude is
difficult to understand for the unbelieving world (and often too for the
Christian who has not yet adapted to it); and that indeed contains a mysterious
audacity and an apparent paradox, in keeping with the lateness of the hour; and
that ultimately it cannot be explained in a perfectly rational manner at all…”
P51-52
There is much to be said about this lengthy quote regarding his attempt to implement a new cryptic path between absolutism and Enlightenment relativism, which is apparently above our rational capability to really understand, despite his insistence on relying on the "intellectual domain." This reads more like a Chinese riddle than Catholic theological writing.
Balthasar then moves on to Augustine again which he seems to have a special overall distaste for as well as a gross misunderstanding of him. He says that there must be a rethinking about the ancient axiom, ‘outside the Church, there is no salvation.” “Everyone is to be blessed in his own fashion; outside the Church there is every possibility of salvation.” P53
He then uses
the rare cases of Baptism by desire and by blood as proof that we can readily
expect people to be saved outside the visible Church. He then says that
salvation is merely mediated by the Church, but never stresses the fact that
the normal fashion as asked by Christ for people to reach salvation and union with God is within the Church. It is the reason for which we preach the gospel to all nations! This thinking which stresses the exception to the rule is why we don't evangelize effectively today! This is the "new evangelization" in motion. This also coincides with his belief that hell can possibly be empty stated in his other work 'Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved.' This article 'The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar' offers an explanation into his thought on hell, why it is wrong, and why his ideas are so convoluted.
Balthasar then goes on to speak cryptically about how the
Reformation tore the bowels of the Church out which were thrown onto the
streets of the world to be absorbed and spread like “invisible fragrances…
scattered in the most worldly parts of the world.” P55-56
Balthasar says that the “existential self-knowledge in
the depths of the church as subject has changed.” He says that Catholic
theologians largely fail to recognize “what is true in Protestant dogmatics” as
if the Church no longer knew these truths or still possessed them after the revolt. Rather than recognize that those who apostatized from the Church as being heretical and separated from due to a lack of faith, he then states that “Through the
mediation of those who have left, a new form of osmosis between the church and
the world is beginning like a breath, drawing in and out.”
He misunderstands Augustine claiming that he taught double
predestination and says that this caused medieval Christians to lack dedication
and responsibility for the non-Christian as if the Church was not already
well-versed and successful at preaching the gospel and converting pagans for
example. He says that now that the bastions of this medieval system have fallen
we now have a new awareness of united humanity. P58 Note that he quotes the revolutionary
modernist philosopher Henri Bergson and his work Deux Sources for ideas here.
Note for further exploration: For a brief overview of Bergon's thought the British library online article on modernism explains briefly, “As a way to recuperate the qualitative, subjective experience of time, Bergson developed an influential concept of ‘pure duration’, which he argued ‘might well be nothing but a succession of qualitative changes, which melt into and permeate one another, without precise outlines’. The difficulty of Bergson’s prose is partly a result of his desire to talk about duration without quantifying it or using spatial metaphors: the challenge was to think of time not as a line, or a chain, or a succession of hours and minutes, but as ‘pure heterogeneity”. (non-uniform) After understanding Bergson’s ideas we can possibly see why Balthasar is so cryptic in his ideas. Anyone attempting to fuse this clouded thinking with theology is going to be confusing.
It should also be noted that Balthasar attempted a unification and fusing of Aquinas' metaphysics with the severely flawed Heideggerian philosophy. He was also influenced heavily by Erich Przywara who created a new type of metaphysics. Again, this in my eyes explains the cryptic character of his theology and those who follow his methods. Anne Carpenter in her insightful work on von Balthasar explains his thinking, "Thomist being and Heideggerian unveiling are brought together when von Balthasar describes truth itself as the unveiling of being, the expression of being’s inward depths. Von Balthasar knits together a basically Thomist metaphysics and epistemology with the Heideggerian aletheia, forming what Fergus Kerr calls a “Heideggerian Thomism...” and, "The young von Balthasar studied metaphysics under the tutelage of Przywara, whose works Analogia entis: metaphysik and Polarity help to form a view of the world and a view of God that remained with von Balthasar throughout his life."
Continuing on in the book,
Balthasar thus comes to the conclusion that only now in the modern time can we
understand the fullness of the gospel which was hidden for so long. “Once
again the Church is at the beginning.” P 61. He compares the church now to
an opened flower that was closed in the middle ages. Now the great Catholic
poet and theologian Dante becomes his next target, even going so far as to say that
his type of Christianity is really no Christianity at all! What makes this comment even more comical is that Balthasar praises the poetry of Dante in his other theological works. I guess it's his theology that Balthasar disapproves of. But once again, it is the era of time which he attacks.
He says, “Some things were possible then that are no
longer possible today. It was possible to be a wonderfully awake Christian like
Dante and yet pass through the hell of his fellow Christians with a hardened
heart and unmoved, contemplating the tortures of this most impressive of all
concentration camps, studying them, committing them to memory, letting
life-stories and tragedies be related to him each time shaking the dust from his
feet at the end, passing on, leaving behind what could not be charged and
leaving it to itself. What a Christian of that era could justify, cannot be
accepted today: otherwise he would reveal himself to be an utter un-Christian.”
P68-69
Chapter 3: Endurance
Theme: The Church must enter deeper into the world.
Balthasar does acknowledge the importance of the Church as a steward of
truth but cautions that since she appears to be one of many truths in the
world since her walls have been torn down, that in today's world one cannot
grasp the world in the same way as the medieval did. He essentially compares it
to a flat world and a round world view. P72-73.
He reveals his progressive view of the world and theology
when he says, “This exclusively modern experience-than the different realms of
truth demand a change of one’s intellectual standpoint (an experience given
clear expression by Hegel’s dialectics, Bergson’s and Dilthey's intellectual
philosophy of life and od understanding, and Husserl’s phenomenology)-
reinforces in an exceptional manner the necessity of trust in intellectual matters.”
P73
Rather than correct these modernist views, which admittedly he also does not wholly
adopt, he does not correct in the manner which the popes of the previous 150 years had taught, (Using Thomism), instead he
chooses his own new way. He instead views the Church and the believer in a
mode of action or motion. This smacks directly of the confused Nouvelle théologie of
Blondel and others. And while the expression of walking with Christ and the Holy
Spirit does have validity in the spiritual life and in the life of the Church
as a whole, he seems to place theology almost in a position of fear and awe
compared to the new discoveries of the modern world through science which
according to him can almost upset core theological truths. "...modern archeology, paleontology, Oriental studies, et cetera, still make theology hold its breath and keep it in suspense." P83 In his eyes as its as if the Church should step lightly in lieu of what the world has to teach us or what it might "discover.".
His theology then develops new solidarity between the City of God
and the City of Man. P84. He calls for the individual to caution more in
bearing the divine truth than in enduring the worldly truth as if the two are
somehow divided! Did the apostles walk in apprehension of preaching the gospel to the world? Were they walking on eggshells worrying about what the world might teach them? No, for the apostles, the Church brings light to the world by preaching the Gospel.
This idea seems to be confused at times in his writing despite his claim that the Church must go into the world. It is more like the Church going into the world to learn from it rather than to preach it the gospel.
Chapter IV: Contact
Theme: The thinking of the Church must be changed from the thought of the middle ages and the Church must now emerge from behind its torn down walls from its splendid isolation.
Again, the one point of welcome acknowledgment is of Mary’s role in the Church which covers most of the final 11-page chapter. But his Marian piety is severely limited in scope and he attempts to place it in Hegel’s philosophical categories which synthesize Mary as a privileged individual to be internalized in the Church and in the individual as a process "in complete simultaneity." He turns this childlike obedience of following in Mary’s footsteps into a descent of which the Church comes into contact with the world. Yet, he never really explains what any of this looks like in practice. P97-98
He closes by taking a parting shot at the cloistered nuns of
the Church, calling them the “closed garden” as if their role in private prayer
is no longer needed in today's age. He claims these monastic walls have also been torn down and for the better! He says
the world no longer has any room for hermits or “any Christian private
existence.” We must instead awaken to the sense of the present time.
P100-101. He finally says that it is no longer the case of bringing those in
the world coming over the wall into the Church, but the Church must now spill into the
world. For such a supposedly brilliant theologian, his idea of the Church in this particular work is quite myopic and shallow. Rather than any clear concept of the Church converting the people of the world, its almost as if they are both supposed to mutually enrich each other with their own wisdom, of which each has in its own possession.
This concludes my brief summary and notation after taking the time to read this book again. This book is in my opinion the rantings of an arrogant and cryptic theologian who thought he could improve on the steady organic development of theology through the ages by his new revolutionary manner of thinking. Some try to equate Balthasar to Saint Thomas Aquinas who was also considered to be novel by some in his time, but one there is one huge difference. Thomas's theology is founded upon perennial concepts that quickly withstood scrutiny. Objective truth was affirmed and further concretized through his line of thinking, while objective truth is obscured in the arrogant hands of von Balthasar. Thus we can conclude that Balthasar's development was no development at all. It ends up being a devolution back to a time before Thomas firmed up the truth of the faith with the light of theological development. I must conclude with another glass since going through this book again was a trying task indeed. I hope to follow this post up by adding a video commentary to accompany it.
Comments
Post a Comment