Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
But it should be!
- Status
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Who were these “infamous heretics”?
J
JReducation
Guest
The fact that John Paul was formed in and was a professor of Thomistic philosophy does not mean that he had to speak this way. In fact, rarely spoke this way. John Paul had a better grasp of the purpose and place of Aquinas in Catholic life than many of us do.
Many of us tend to exalt Aquinas beyond reason, something that would shock the Angelic Doctor. John Paul used Aquinas to learn how to think. Once he had the concept, the next step was to communicate it. However, being a pastor as well as a scholar, he took scholarly concepts and communicated them using pastoral language, hence the language of Theology of the Body, Evangelium Vitae, Vita Consecrata, Et Unum Sint and many other works.
Not really. Even the Dominicans would disagree with this. Man is not a machine. He is much more complex. Aristotelian logic is tool as is math. It’s a very helpful tool for problem solving. But it should not be how we live. Allow me to offer an example.But it should be!
Look at the rules of Benedict, Basil, Augustine, Francis, and Albert. They describe how man is to live the Gospel. But if you notice, while they are grounded in reason (logic), they do not prescribe a rigid method of existence. In fact, they are just the opposite. They highly encourage their readers to step outside the box and to do what in Aristotle’s order would be illogical. They arrive at this freedom through logical thought. In other words, through logical thought they conclude that man’s call is to live beyond systems. If man becomes to systematic, he loses something. So these rules are far from systematic, yet they are precisely about how we are to live. They really serve any human being, not just the consecrated religious. The difference here is that we (religious) vow obedience to one of these rules; but we’re not the only ones called to live by them. They’re just summaries of the Gospel. The Gospel is not Aristotelian. I don’t get that sense that Jesus speaks in systems.
R
RedCaves
Guest
Hans Urs Von Balthasar (not that infamous, to be honest)Who were these “infamous heretics”?
Karl Rahner
Teilhard de Chardin
Hans Kung
Those are some names that I have been told. I’m not sure if I can find a “proof” for it. At least, for some.
J
JReducation
Guest
Whoah!!!
First of all, there is a difference between a heresy and a heretic.
Some things that were said by these men were heresy or were confusing enough that could lead to heresy. However, none of them was ever condemned as a heretic.
You and I have no right to do that. Only Canon Law and the hierarchy have the authority to call someone a heretic. Heretic is a canonical designation. Canon Law can only be applied by the proper canonical authority. In this case, it’s the hierarchy.
All of the men whom you named may have had a difference with the Church on this or that point, but the Holy See never condemned them as heretics, neither should you and I. We don’t have authority to do so.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Aristotle was rooted in reality. Many Aristotleans today are not.But it should be!
**The worst thing that can happen to an Aristotlean is that he becomes an Aristotlean.
- Jean Varnier**
R
RPRPsych
Guest
I don’t think he was a “heretic” at all. I’ve read and enjoyed his “infamous” Dare we Hope…that “All Men Be Saved” and found it quite thoughtful and reasoned. Besides, Pope John Paul II elevated him to the Cardinalate; I don’t think the Pope would have done that if von Balthasar was a heretic.
A good theologian with some bad points (his criticism of Humanae Vitae will always earn him a black mark in my book), but his idea of the “Anonymous Christian” is something I’ve found interesting, and have explored in my own writing.
An interesting speculator whose speculations took him way too far out into left field. I doubt he had the stature or the influence to “destroy Thomism”. He’d have done fine as an evolutionary biologist or psychologist, rather than a theologian.
Hans who?
(Sorry, he’s on my “ignore” list.)I think you need to look for those proofs, especially where men like von Balthasar are concerned. Remember, “innocent until proved guilty”, right?
S
StudentMI
Guest
I wasn’t aware they had taken it out. I thought it was still the case. That’s interesting. Thanks for posting this.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I didn’t know they had taken it out. I thought it was still the case. Thanks for posting this. That’s interesting.
T
TRH1292
Guest
To say that Hans Urs Von Balthasar is a heretic is absolutely preposterous. He was appointed a Cardinal and is one of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI favorite theologians. Neither is Chardin a heretic, nor was that ever suggested when he was alive.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church does not consider any of these men heretics, not even Kung. Pope Benedict has great respect for him. Kung is a lose canon, but he’s smart and he’s obedient. He’s an interesting personality study. His license to teach theology in Catholic schools was taken away, but his priestly faculties were never taken away. He still celebrates mass and hears confessions like any other priest. Pope Benedict had him over to visit on a few occasions. They disagree, but they have professional respect for each other. Pope Benedict had asked him to work on some ecumenical project. I can’t remember what it was. It was early in Pope Benedict’s reign.
De Chardin is still quoted by Pope Benedict in some of his work. Not everything that he wrote was crazy. He too was brilliant. Rhahner’s orthodoxy has only been questioned by Traditionalists, not by the popes. Bl. John Paul did not agree with his systems. But he never publicly mentioned him by name. He does address his systems in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. But anyone who has not read Rahner, would miss the references. Benedict and Rahner were very good friends and cooperators until Rahner’s death.
Rahner’s theory of the anonymous Christian was not unique to him. He gave it a name. But John Paul and Benedict share a similar position, with some nuances. John Paul and Benedict never gave it a formal name; that’s all.
Van Baltazar, I’m not sure where that’s coming from. Every pope who has known him loves him and quotes him. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis.
Even King, his ideas on contraception, same sex intercourse, abortion, women priests and those hot button issues are unorthodox. However, his ecclessiology is quite good. He would be the first to defend the laity’s right to speak on Church matters and women’s right to be in positions of authority, even if they were not ordained. He would be the first to come out for a more moral social and political structure, yet he would shy away from Marxism. This school of theologians is not very fond of Marxist Socialism. That was proper to some of the Latin American theologians, not all either.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t remember if it was Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict, but one of them took it out. There is a section in the law about priestly formation and it makes reference to scholastic theology. But we have to remember that Aquinas was not the only scholastic theologian. There were several great minds there.
My guess always was that Rome must have gotten tired of giving out indults not to use Aquinas. If you stop to think about it, if you’re giving out indults every month, why bother having it in the law?
If you know that if you try to enforce the law, you’re not going to be able to do so, because tradition is working against you, as is the case in the major religious orders of men, why demand it?
The major religious orders of men can’t be bound by this law, because these orders have their own formation traditions that are hundreds of years old. The rule of thumb is that if something is that old you can continue the practice until it’s prohibited. To ask Augustinians and Franciscans to replace Augustine and Bonaventure with Aquinas is silly.
J
JRKH
Guest
I had never heard of Rahner’s theory of the anonymous Christian but my curiosity was peaked so I took a look at THIS. Though I’m sure this is in no way a comprehensive summary - and also that it is written by a non-Catholic, I found the theory to be most interesting. I’ve had been thinking along similar lines myself over the years.
Most interesting indeed…
Peace
James
Most interesting indeed…
Peace
James
J
JReducation
Guest
It is definitely very interesting and no one with any authority has ever condemned it.
On the other hand, no one with any authority has ever said it was accurate. It’s out there and open for discussion.
That’s why I hate it when people start throwing the word heretic around. Heretic comes from Canon Law. The only one who is allowed to apply the law is the person who has been given authority by the law or the law giver.
On the other hand, no one with any authority has ever said it was accurate. It’s out there and open for discussion.
That’s why I hate it when people start throwing the word heretic around. Heretic comes from Canon Law. The only one who is allowed to apply the law is the person who has been given authority by the law or the law giver.
O
otjm
Guest
That, however, has not even acted as a speed bump to those who toss the term around with such alacrity and glee. Then, again, when one has the brass to set oneself up as the alternate “true” magisterium, why would it possibly slow them down?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Let’s pour it on them.
Left alone, the “for you and for all” theology would have never been corrected. And it wasn’t only the English so someone above the ICEL would have authorized the 67 renditions. Yes, there were some groups who went so far to call the entire canon invalid because of the “for all” wording but someone at the Vatican eventually listened to them.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, the “for all” correction was made on scholarly grounds. When the original canon was written, Catholic exegetes legitimately believed that “many” and “all” could be legitimately interchanged as a “Hebraism”, as in these verses:
*(Isa 53:6) All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
*
*(Isa 53:11) Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities.
*
However, the Church later clarified (I think it was Pope Benedict, but I’m not sure) that subsequent study showed that this probably wasn’t accurate. I don’t think groups screaming about the invalidity of the Mass of Paul VI had too much to do with it. The Church never was a democracy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Nevertheless it was said and reinforced for 40 years. And it was defended by a lot of theologians and scholars.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
I really must study him more.
Was he the same Rahner who edited an old edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum? That book lists him as “Charles” Rahner, but that may just be an Anglicization.That is certainly true. Pope Benedict has a nice discussion of this (“the salvation of those who do not believe in Christ”) in the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth, when referring to the Sermon on the Mount.
I think that comes from the fact that he is wrongly perceived as believing in universal salvation, an empty hell, and apokatastasis. He merely discussed their possibility.
What I find distressing about those who want a populous Hell and a small number of the saved is that they never see themselves as being in it - it’s always their pet peeves or adversaries who populate it. They also have the uncanny knack of memorizing quotes from Church Fathers that support their position, as if those statements constitute an absolute and dogmatic proof. That inconsistency and certainty is what led me to start reading von Balthasar’s book in the first place.
I must really ask my father about this; he’s the Kung fan in our family.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
But was that such a terrible thing? Christ’s sacrifice is certainly available for the salvation of all, even if many men choose to reject it of their own free will. I don’t think the average Catholic in our pews (I speak for my own town and community, of course) lost too much sleep over it. It’s still “for all” in Tamil masses, and they tend to be more devout that those of us who prefer an English liturgy.
- Status