Heart of the World

I've read excerpts from his writings, but I've also seen him quoted a lot with regard to dissident stuff. Some of that is just out of context typical of dissidents, but I asked a professor about it last semester. Apparently SOME of his writings are problematic, but it also depends on the reader; if your own doctrine is solid, you wouldn't be lead astray. As with anything, we have to discern what is good and filter out the bad.

Case in point: Origin was guilty of certain material heresies. As with all theologians, they have a certain freedom to ponder questions and expand on ideas, which is what he did, and so the ideas he advanced he did so tentatively. He died a loyal son of the Church, but three centuries later some of his writings were condemned as heretical (such as the idea of apostostasis). I'm thinking Balthazar is along those lines, but I don't know enough about him.

Julie,

Have heard the same and I doubt if I will read his "Meditations on the Tarot" or his "Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved", though I have read quite orthodox writers defend these books. But certainly Ignatius Press does not print dissident stuff and when you write on the edges of theology or write speculatively you can easily get into areas that others find confusing.

Balthasar is one of the leading Catholic authors in philosophy and theology. He has wonderful meditations on Christ and he has a number of treatises on the philosophy of beauty. Some people steer clear of his writings on Jesus because they find problems in his work, but he's just working in speculative theology, meaning that sometimes a definite answer cannot be reached, so he makes a statement that isn't unorthodox, but could always be tweaked.

Jester:

I read a number of his books some years back, and I admit most of his stuff went right over my head. But every once in a while I would get what he was saying and man, it was wonderful!

You've encouraged me to buy "Heart of the World!"

Well, considering that the man was to be elevated to Cardinal by John Paul the Great, and was an associate of Joseph Ratzinger, I think there's no reason to suspect him of any shady motives. I'd say to read him critically, but shouldn't you read every theologian critically?

Hi did read most of his books, and I cannot reccomend them enough. A couple are indeed problematic, mainly the one regarding the possibility "to hope for all", as different fom the assertion that the hell is actually empty; he takes the judment by God absolutely seriously (read the fourth volume of his Theodramatic).
Anyway, he always submitted his own views to the judment by the Church, as you can read in his preface to the book, and never assumed a dissident attitude.
A saintly, humble and kind prodigiously learned man, an examplar son of saint Ignatius of Loyola, I met him personally in Italy in 1984: my lasting impression was of a devout Christian deeply loving the Catholic Church.
The book you're reading was written in the aftermath of his encounter with the mystic Adrienne von Speyr and reflects her experiences under his direction. But you can hardly judge him an exalted mystical: even von Speyr's books are impressive for her objective tone, avoiding any sentimental extravagance.
His main attempt is in the reviving on the depths of the Catholic Dogma, that is, the specificly proper of the Christian faith: he fought a strong battle against the madness of the post-conciliar liberal theology (of course, he was not against the Council) always remarking the our salvation is only in Christ, as announced by and in the Church.
I heartly recomend his meditations on the main feasts of the liturgical year: "You Crown the Year With Your Goodness", as well as any of his book about prayer. His reflections about the Petrine Primate is, in my opinion, outstanding: "The Office of Peter And the Structure of the Church".
Yo can get a glimpe of his thought from several excerpts at: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/authors/vonbalthasar.asp#hubbooks

Enjoy!

"Mysterium Paschale" would be a good choice of book by Balthasar for Lenten reading.

To those who read Balthasar with the mind of the Church (just as he always wrote with the mind of the Church), everything that he says is faithful to Catholic Tradition in the widest and richest sens of that term.

I know that some hardline traditionalists regard him as "modernist", but these are very often people who say the same thing about Benedict XVI, and who are working with a very narrow definition of "tradition".

Adeodatus,

I find your comment interesting. The reality is that John Paul the Great elevated a lot of problematic Bishops and we're STILL suffering under their leadership; so I would suggest that using the fact that he might have chosen someone to be a Bishop or Cardinal is really not a very strong argument for that individual's orthodoxy. (I am a HUGE fan of JPII, so please don't misunderstand me!)

Cardinal Ratzinger was also known to be somewhat "liberal" in the past, so someone listed as an associate of his...likewise not a statement of the individual's orthodoxy. And as we see, not a statement of the now Pope's orthodoxy, either. (Also a HUGE fan of dear Papa Benedict XVI!) :-)

And yes, we should always read with a critical eye, although if certain theolgians are "flagged", as it were, well, that's where we really need to take care. I would love to read more of von Balthazar's work, and perhaps I will either as part of school or when I'm done. Merton is on my list, too...and again, selected works. That's not to suggest that he's "shady"...again, many theologians are only advancing ideas and are ready for those ideas to be declared contrary to the teachings of the Church. They aren't advancing dogma. My point is just to take care in what we read...and clearly, you agree.

As a priest who has taught Catholic Dogma and History at an orthodox seminary for many years, I can assure my fellow Nuke that von B. is a fine, orthodox theologian; as a matter of fact, I believe history will place him very high on the list of original speculative theologians of the 20th century. He is a much more Church-true theologian than Rahner (usually considered the best of the west of that century) and the areas of his writing that excite criticism are most often linked to apokatastasis (the salvation of all creation), where he reasons that God's mercy would lead to the eventual salvation even of the damned. He had an affection for Origen of Alexandira who first proposed this idea, but did not hold it as doctrine. It rather details v. B's great belief in God's mercy. We need not exult in the eternal existence of Hell, even if it is a manifestation of God's good justice and man's free will.

His impending elevation to cardinal at the time of his death was richly deserved, and his systematic works will especially be prized by Catholic thinkers in the future. I have used his works in the education of our seminarians for many years, and my students' educations and priesthoods would be poorer without him.

As someone who is teaching systematic theology to seminarians I can assure you that von Balthasar is not an orthodox theologian. I refer you to the book 'Light in Darkness', by Lyra Pitstick, for exhaustive documentation of this fact. Among his unCatholic views are the claims that Christ despaired on the cross, and that he descended to the hell of the damned and somehow shared their sufferings; these contradict the basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

John Lamont