A Response to Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon on Henri de Lubac
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, I critique Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon's portrayal of Henri de Lubac's theology of nature and grace. Authentic criticism requires accurate portrayal of the opponent. Here, I argue that they have failed to present Henri de Lubac's position accurately, and thus, their criticism is based on a straw man.
N.B.: My apologies for misspelling Timothy Gordon's name on the opening title screen: I thought I had fixed it before uploading.
Become a Patron via my Donorbox Account here:
donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support
Visit my blog here:
declubac.wixsite.com/sapientianulliformis
I am afraid that I have become rather disenchanted with Dr Marshal. He seems to have launched himself on a trajectory that will ultimately take him out of the church. This is very distressing.
It is sad (and scary) to watch, but I share your concern.
I don’t know if Taylor watches your channel but if he does, he should invite you in the show for a sustained, rigorous, theological, discussion regarding nouvelle theologia. This would bring the theology of the academy into a popular audience. The Catholic tradition is not anti-intellectual and integralism does not represent the Catholic tradition effectively. There are important nuances that you highlight and I really believe that there is an audience for these deeper theological discussions. The Catholic blogosphere has to completely disassociate itself from the rhetorical style employed in popular culture (e.g, the way the MSM treats politics is a case in point). I do not even watch it anymore as it is disruptive to my spirit. But I think calm reasoned discussions are important for Catholics to engage in,
Excellent presentation, scholarly and charitable. I find that the rad trads tend to presume Vatican II theologians "guilty until proven innocent." It's not a fair way to proceed. God will judge us for every idle word, not to mention slander.
I appreciate your comments. I think Dr Marshall needs to slow his roll on many theological topics. His attempts to convey his views and lunging to be relevant all the time leaves him looking like a know it all rube. Since he has a Phd, I would think he has more respect for Barron, Cardinal Henri Lubac, and Balthasar as well. Aquinas and Lubac can coexist.
Well said
For a follow-up video, where I delve more deeply into de Lubac's position, the neo-scholastic objections, and de Lubac's response, look for: Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace: a Follow-up to my Critique of Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon
"Authentic criticism requires accurate portrayal of the opponent." This is something you need to fully embrace, DeClue, before you attempt to lay it at the feet of others. Would that you might apologize for things far more egregious than an accidental misspelling. LoL.
@@pl6168 Not sure what you're talking about. This video is quite accurate. If you're talking about the SSPX video: also accurate. You not liking it doesn't change it.
@@decluesviews2740 It does go without saying that your dislike for the truth, including your lack of information, fails to change the truth.
The same goes for your distaste at being aptly termed hypocritical when you assert what others should do while you fail to walk the walk.
In your words, "Nice try." Although it really wasn't. Just a predictable, "Do as I say, not as I do."
@@pl6168 I am not even sure what you are talking about, What exactly are you speaking about the word "truth"?
I am glad that I have found your channel. I am just learning about de Lubac. You have gained another subscriber.
I have to congratulate you on this channel. This is the best stuff I have read. You have a good grasp of all this stuff, whereas the howling screamers that get the most attention on youtube etc have either no grasp at all, or have wilfully decided to twist what others say about theological points.
OMG! How great was this! I am not Catholic, but on some level there was a realization within that this is true and now I have a great deal of homework and research to do. How exciting! I hope my pea sized brain can wrap itself around these concepts.
Good comment, open for contemplation, giving credit, being constructive, reasonable.
Blah blah blah 🙄
This response was excellent and much needed. Marshall's video was filled with imprecise accusations, encouraged both the regurgitation of theological jargon and a quasi ideological devotion to Thomas (something Aquinas himself would be appalled by). I am particularly concerned with the manner in which they seek to divide the faithful: "are you a Ratzinger kind of Catholic, or in the Garrigou-Lagrange party?" This kind of simple division is ideological in kind, and damaging to the pursuit of wisdom--which does not blindly tie itself to any one individual thinker. DeClue, I am quite encouraged by your charitable response and refreshed by your careful consideration of the arguments involved. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Thank you, Elisa, for your kind words, support, and very well-written comments!
Exactly! Saint Thomas would be appalled at the false misrepresentations Marshall provides. He would be appalled at Marshalls efforts, which are really an effort to divide the church.
It has been said that Joseph Ratzinger was one of the main intellectual forces of the 20th century though his pontificate as an aside Benedict 's books on Christ are both humble and highly informative. And for the record Taylor Marshall is no Joseph Ratzinger.
@tom st Marshall misrepresents almost everything, so it is hard to know where to start. His 'effort" as I see it, is to use SSPX conspiracy theories (that have been around a long time, he just repackages old SSPX stuff) is not a return to tradition. It is more a desire to break with the Catholic church, reject the teachings of recent popes and Councils, and using his own "conscience" declare that Lefebvre represents the only true church, and Marshall is his one true prophet. Now, if your complaints about Vatican II consist of "But Pachamamma!" then you can see that you are merely objecting to Pope Francis and his sometimes odd actions. But this of course has nothing to do with Vatican II.
As to the continual misuse of Aquinas, Aquinas would be appalled that his name is invoked to denigrate a council of the church, to denigrate Popes and bishops, and to justify rebellion against the church. Of course, he would never stand for any of that. Marshall tries to use Aquinas when it is to his benefit, and then rejects Aquinas when Aquinas would clearly reject what Marshall is doing. Marshall simply ignores Aquinas and much of Catholic doctrine when it is convenient. In addition, there is a difference between following Aquinas in all respects, and being in reality a follower of Garrigou Lagrange or Suarez, who each have their own take on Aquinas. Marshall does not really follow Aquinas, he follows a distinct interpretation of Aquinas as explicated by those men.
Absolutely wonderful comments...Thank you!!!
What cracks me up about Marshall and Gordon is that they almost never fairly represent what the other guy has to say. They create a weird caricuture of whoever it is, De Lubac or Balthasar, etc. What they fail to tell their followers is that JP II and Benedict both thought very highly of these men. Do they think De Lubac or Balthasar were idiots, or that JP II or Benedict were idiots. Marshall strikes me as a very weak propagandist, and it now turns out he is going full SSPX on us. A Shame.
At 8:48 he gets to the point.
This is great. I've not been very charitable to TM or his various guests I'm afraid. In large part I take great exception to the cult of personality that has been established, and the rather cavalier attitude toward lightly critiquing EVERYONE and EVERYTHING assumed to be in error, as you allude to here. There is a deep rooted sense of pride in the channel. Which of-course is judgmental of me to presume.... however like I said I do have a hard time being charitable toward him.
I saw that T & T conversation. I thought it was a good sensationalist take on De Lubac. I am now reading reading Le mystère du surnaturel and relishing the sensation of mentally scoring points as I am able to see how spectacularly the two T's had missed the point. Their video was a good entry point despite and - above all - thanks to its flaws.
Thank you for your the teaching and openness, you truly are doing God’s work. I hear them and my heart aches with what and how they present their information. They should be better than that and you hold them up to it. Thank you.
If you like fountain pens and the Oxford commas like me
Im a big fan already. Love your shows. My suggestion is to carve your on way forward dont be stuck in a responsive role to Marshall Taylor. Plenty of area to carve out on your own. Also, I think constantly having to clear the record where Marshall gets sloppy will be an endless chores that isnt your burden. Looking forward to more shows.
I really appreciate this explanation, thank you very much. Do you have any suggestions of books to read for a good introductory explanation (for non-specialists) of the 20th century debates about nature and grace, and in particular the Communio view?
I don't have a specific book in mind for you. But perhaps the article by Nicholas Healy is a good place to start for the Communio side: www.communio-icr.com/files/HealyFinalFormat.pdf
For the other side, anything by Lawrence Feingold. I also hear that Swafford has an excellent book proposing a third way between the two, using Scheeben as the solution. I haven't read it yet, though.
Really good. Thanks for making this.
Glad I discovered this channel now. Hope to see you become one of the online Catholic greats!
De Lubac et. al. held that we have just one end, the supernatural end i.e. human persons are intrinsically ordered to the beatific vision. He held that as intellectual beings, we can only be satisfied by vision of God in Himself, and that therefore we are intrinsically ordered to that vision. Denying this, he thought, would lead to holding that Christ does not reveal the fundamental nature and purpose of human beings; it would lead to holding that human beings can be entirely (naturally) fulfilled apart from what Christianity reveals; and it would lead to a purely secular view of human nature, with grace just as something added on to human nature extrinsically, instead of being what reveals and allows the deepest fulfillment of our natures.
The Thomists, by contrast, held that no created nature could be ordered to a supernatural end; finite natures as such can only be ordered to finite ends, which they can achieve by their own acts and through their own powers. God in Himself exceeds all finite natures, and so could not be the end of a finite nature. Human nature, on this view, is intrinsically ordered to contemplating God as first cause insofar as this can be done through natural reasoning alone. Grace raises up human nature to being ordered to a further, supernatural, more perfect, more fulfilling end, the beatific vision. Denying this (as the nouvelle theologians do) would lead to denying the gratuity of grace (if human nature were intrinsically ordered to the beatific vision, then God would in some sense owes grace to us, since no natural desire/teleological ordering can be in vain), and to denying the possibility of natural law reasoning (if our nature is ordered primarily to grace/beatific vision, then we can't understand human nature, its ends, and the ethical principles that flow therefrom, without revelation), and so to a sort of fideism.
I addressed all that in this video and the follow up video. Check it out.
Do you have any recommendations for starting points for reading Henri de Lubac? Are there any Nouvelle-Theologie (sp?) papers or books you'd recommend for someone looking to read this school of thought? Seems exciting! Thank you
They confused DeLubac with Palagius.
I'm late to the party, but I feel the need to clarify. As an Eastern Catholic, I love Henri de Lubac. His insights into the Latin Theology of the medieval west brought the thoughts of the west into line of the eastern father's thought. This should be of no surprise, as his goal was, to use his word, "resourcement." I have read many of his books, along with those of some opposing theologians, and find that he always clearly represents his opponents and carefully traces back in time where this thought originated. His opponents, well, were not always so respectful.
Yet, while I love him, I must admit that his censure was from the backdoors of the Roman Curia. It was well known that Humani Generis was directed towards the Resourcement theologians as a group, with de Lubac being a particularly influential and respected member. It is also well documented that persons on the Curia had a great distaste for de Lubac, writing letters to his superior pressuring his removal and censure. It can be noted that while recognizing, along with the theological community at large, that Humani Generis was vaguely directed at himself, de Lubac could not find a single concept he had put forward. It was, in his opinion, a complete strawman of his thought. (Incidentally, an influential theologian at the Angelicum said, in paraphrase, of de Lubac's work at the time that he "Understood not a word of it, but knew it to be heresy." Still, the censure was directed at him and his work.
So, while it is true that Pius XII never censured him, the Curia, without officially doing so certainly did. This is, I believe, one of the issues faced by the modern church, one which I know from direct accounts affected some of the more beloved popes of recent times, mainly John Paul II. The Curia acts as the head of the church at times apart from the pope himself. This was especially true around the time of the Second Vatican Council. It was a common joke amongst theologians prior to the council to say, "I am not afraid of the Pope, but I am terrified by his secretary." And the orthodox at the time said in jest that, "every man in Rome considers himself infallible.
The Curia's desire to censure de Lubac became completely clear to him when he was acting as a "pereti" at the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, during which he actually stood up and said that as it was clear that the commission planned to have him condemned that he would like to be removed that he might faithfully obey the church and not hinder the work of the council.
This is a common trend of de Lubac life. He humbly and willingly submitted to what was, in effect, a censure, though he thought it unjust. He humbly accepted his role in the council. He humbly met with those men who had slandered his name and met them without the pretense of amiability that they showed him, denying their roles in his censure, while remaining cordial and respectful, from all accounts. I think we need not deny his non-censure censure by the Curia. And we can point out that with the concept of Papal Infallibility, the role of the Curia is somewhat dubious. If the Curia censures someone, is it the Pope who does so?
Ultimately, we need not question whether he was censured for a time by the Pope. By official documents, the Common Doctor, St. Thomas himself, was completely censured by Rome for 75 years. And whether the Pope meant for this censure of Aquinas to be as extensive as it was matters not. For neither his, nor de Lubac, censure came in the form of a council or by the hand of the Pope himself, and therefore neither has authority over a council of the church. A council of which it might be truly said, was the most truly ecumenical council in history (in its participation of practically every church sui juris and
So I posted this after you wanted proof he was censured, and I kept listening and you addressed some of this. And I really appreciate the fact you have read his article Duplex hominis beatitudo. It's one of my favorites.
What nobody seems to mention is the second council of Orange. Togethet with waht Aquinas affirms here se may reach an intetesting conclusion.
You can find Marshall's Ph.D. thesis on ProQuest, "Thomas Aquinas on natural law and teh [sic] twofold beatitude of humanity."
Thanks! I'm currently reading Feingold's book as well as a dissertation on the topic by a priest (my pastor) that he did for his doctorate of sacred theology. I've studied and written on this topic myself. I just wish they hadn't mispresented de Lubac here. Tim actually thanked me for correcting him. He wasn't aware that the article he cited was wrong.
TM (IMHO) is doing great damage to the RCC in the US. I'm old school Catholic... all the criticism of the Pope (s) is where I draw the line.
Then you're not a Catholic. If the Pope is wrong, then we are to oppose him.
Thanks for your support. I have lamented the admixture of great, solid, orthodox things on TM's channel mixed with grossly inaccurate and false assertions tacked on. Because of the good content, his bad content is particularly dangerous, and in that regard, I agree with you.
@@acrxsls1766 tell that to God when you see Him.
I think u r right, in spirit at least. I too draw the line when we criticise the Holy Father. I too am old school but I back it up with as much reading and praying as possible.( not to brag but to "boast in the Lord" Psalm 34v1 ) and defend the Faith as clearly as possible, to the best of my ability submitting to the CCC and the Living Magisterium.
@@acrxsls1766 There is no dogma that has been changed!
Thank you so much for this great clarification. It is despicable that this sort of rash condemnation is doing unspeakable damage to the unity of the Church. These divisive videos are without doubt promoting the work of Diablo.
I am glad you appreciated it. When I saw the video, I had to respond, since I had actually studied this in grad school, whereas they based it on a poorly written, online article by a non-scholar who didn’t know the first thing about de Lubac’s thought.
Truth is what vanquishes falsehood. The battle is wholly spiritual, with principalities and powers and the rulers of the world of darkness. Fallen spirits are black holes bent on to sucking souls into their willful blindness. As Jesus said, the devil was a liar from the beginning and he operates out of falsehood and deceit. Divine Truth is infinitely more powerful and has already won the battle on Calvary, though these spirits of darkness are clueless.
@@karlabutler2248 That’s true. To his credit, after watching my follow-up video to this one (explaining de Lubac in more depth), Tim admitted I was right and even publicly thanked me on Twitter.
@@decluesviews2740 It is so good to hear that. God works efficiently and transcendently in more ways than we can know until eternity.
Thank you, thank you!
You're very welcome!
Have you come across Schillebeeckx or Depuis in your readings.? I think John Paul II carefully said that he respected ''the enduring work of Thomas Aquinas''.
I have read more Dupuis than Schillebeeckx but not a fan of either. To me, both hold heretical positions. Depuis holds to de jure religious pluralism, not just de facto.
Very good, point made regarding Nature and Grace (taking your word based on your study; I'm only just delving into Henri and I don't know how far I'll wade in); what say you regarding de Lubac's embrace and rather avid endorsement of Teilhard de Chardin, SJ theology? Copasetic or crazy? Pax Christi
I haven't read much Teilhard myself, thus, I reserve judgment for the same reason I expose mistreatments of those I have read and studied. With that caveat, anytime I see Teilhard mentioned by de Lubac, my hair stands up. I really do need to investigate that at some point, because it makes me nervous.
It should.@@decluesviews2740
So, just to be clear, is DeLubac arguing that the desire to "see God face to face" is a natural desire, but that it cannot be fulfilled if not through supernatural grace, because human nature does not in itself have the capacity to "see God"? And if this is DeLubac's position, is he arguing that God made man in such a way that he can never be "completely fulfilled" by purely natural means (i.e. that even his purely natural understanding of God is not enough to satisfy him on a natural level)?
If I recall correctly, dr. Marshall in his video states that God can elevate our natural desire for God to a desire for the Beatific Vision of the Trinity but that this is already an act of Grace in the soul (in the way God elevates all our natural desires and talents). This seems reasonable to me...otherwise, I am perplexed, because it would seem that God created nature as "insufficient" onto itself, as lacking something, instead of it being gradually elevated by God to a higher perfection, despite it being already fulfilled in itself. What I mean is...say man by reason arrives at the natural understanding and love of God as Creator. This fulfills his natural desire to know God according to his capacity. Grace may then gently and slowly work on the willing soul by putting in it the supernatural desire of "seeing God face to face", desire which can then be fulfilled fully in the Beatific Vision and is "obscurely" fulfilled here through our Faith. This seems to me a reasonable position.
But I am not a theologian, I would like your perspective on this, I am trying to understand these things though I am very poor in study and do not have the qualifications to speak about these things as you do.
Thank you for your comment and questions. You raise a number of the common points surrounding this debate. To answer your question, I would point you to the follow-up video I did where I delve into more of the details on de Lubac's position, and show that both Aquinas and Bellarmine are clear that man's final end being beyond his natural powers is not unfittiny, as some claim. There is a link to the video in one of the comments I wrote below. Please watch it, and then let me know if that answered your questions! God bless!
thank you
In case anyone is interested, this is soon to be released. Henri de Lubac and the Shaping of Modern Theology: A Reader
by David Grumett | Apr 2, 2020 See more at Amazon
Excellent Video
This video's wrong about "Pachamama". Pope Francis stated quite clearly that the statues were not idols.
The contradiction seems to arise when you say that although man has this natural desire he has no right to the beatific vision, it remains a free gratuitious gift from God. Man by himself has not the capability to see God, only through God's gratuitious grace can man possess the beatific vision. The contradiction enters in at exactly this point, if God CREATED man with this ACTUAL desire He would have of neccesity ALREADY made the Object of his narural desire within natural reach.
I am non totally disagreeing with you, for the moment, but rather giving you an oppurtunity to respond, to clarify and correct what I have said.
Remember to keep in mind the distinction whether this natural desire of man to see God is a desire present immediately with existence or a generic natural desire which is only specified and activated subsequent to an intellectual act. In other words the intellect first apprehends and then the desire for truth is specified as to the best object possible for it.
I hope we push each other on this subject in order to magnify or zone in on the central issues. Ofcourse this will also include you correcting me if I wrote something above which is imprecise.
I appreciate the sincerity you show in this video response to Taylor Marshall.
You should probably watch the follow-up video I did after this where I touch on that. Your argument was put forth much later. Denys the Carthusian used it as an argument AGAINST Aquinas, because his position wasn’t “Aristotelian” enough. Cajetan then reinterpreted Aquinas to try to make it seem like he agreed with Denys. But this doesn’t actually hold. It presupposes that a nature must possess the power to attain the end. De Lubac agrees that man does not have the capacity to attain this supernatural end by his natural powers, but also denies that God owes it. In fact, he denies that God “owes” us any end, no matter how natural. If you press neo-Thomists on debitum naturae, they’ll admit that God does not actually owe it to the creature properly speaking; it’s more like he owes it to himself. Aquinas’s answer to that objection, by the way, was that even though we can’t obtain the beatific vision by our natural powers, we can ask God to enable us to attain it, and philosophically it is said that, in a certain way, “what I can do through my friends I can be said to do for myself.” So rather than accept that argument, he says it isn’t incompatible. Furthermore, this desire for the beatific vision, he explicitly states, would always remain, even if one were in limbo, and hence even the perfection of all of our natural powers remains an imperfect happiness. That wouldn’t be the case if there were no natural desire for the beatific vision. Finally, that argument seems to call into question God’s free offer of grace in this world: are we to say that because we have that desire he must grant it? What about in heaven? Is it “owed” to the saints and thus no longer freely given? We misunderstand God’s freedom if we think so.
@@decluesviews2740 Thank you for this answer. I really appreciate it. I see I need to study the subject better.
One question arises in my mind, how is it that Thomists like Garigou Lagrange failed to see what you say, if its so simple to see? I am not saying I understood everything you say, I need to think about it, but the way you put it, sounds like the answer to this question is easy and simple. Merely dependent on a few of Aquinas and Bellermine's statements.
Do you think the subject is a closed case and De Lubac is 100% right or can it be that a fruitful dialogue is neccesary between the old theology and the new theology where neither are totally right?
@@dinovalente2947 I think the neo-Thomists as a rule followed the commentatorial tradition, and thus read Aquinas in light of/in continuity with that tradition. De Lubac’s whole argument was that the later commentators misled subsequent generations’ understanding of Aquinas’s own position. There are really two separate questions: 1) what did Aquinas himself actually hold and 2) which position is closer to the truth. They could be the same answer, or they could be different. Perhaps de Lubac gets Aquinas right but the later commentators are correct on the proper understanding. When I started studying this question, I only knew and accepted the neo-Thomist position. I didn’t know why de Lubac took issue with it until I actually started reading his work. I haven’t come to a hard, immovable position on it yet. But I now tend towards de Lubac’s position on both questions: what Aquinas held and what the truth of the matter is. Yet, I think both positions are theologically acceptable. I don’t advocate for either being anathematized. There’s room for discussion. The point of my video was that T&T completely misrepresented de Lubac and even accused him of modernism, which is inaccurate. To his credit, Tim accepted my criticism and thanked me for it.
Amen ... thank you.
Ery pike & refreshing in justice & kindness.
I’ve always thought that the seeking for truth must be very dispassionate and objective, as well as thorough. It’s common to see us well meaning Catholics sometimes get a bit carried away, in defense for truth, sometimes the passion surpasses the actual loyalty to truth. And this is normal, I hope we can grow out of this more and more (Catholics online), learning to be more collected online, and understanding we all can have mistakes and lackings and that we shouldn’t get carried away, in order to have true loyalty to truth.
Amen!
Maybe they will also publicly recant their total trashing of g k Chesterton and Belloc. Their video on distributism has hundreds of critical comments that have gone unanswered....theirs is a monologue.
I have not seen them trashing Chesterton and Belloc. That's really shocking to me. Thanks for calling that to my attention. I'll look out for that.
@@decluesviews2740 well, at the very least they trashed Distributism and present Leo XIII's encyclicals with extreme bias. They get raked over the coals in the comments and responded to none of it. Intractable.
Starts here 9:22
I think Taylor’s position(or possibly a better version of it) is not a problem with the NATURAL desire, but with the INNATE desire. This NATURAL desire comes from a DESIRE TO WONDER, which the naturally LEADS one to pursue God and the beautiful vision. They say, see a rock as a kid and they are like , wow I want to know about this rock, where did it come from? And then they ask their dad, and then their dad gives them a science lesson and then they ask “where did that come from” and then he is led to wonder about God. Then they pursue God and gradually start pursuing God and then gradually start maybe going to Church or something like that
Thanks for the comment and for watching! What I was responding to in this video was an inaccurate portrayal of de Lubac's position, which I then elucidate in this an even more in another video. I don't mind people taking the side of the likes of Feingold on this question, but I do object to misrepresenting de Lubac's position. Tim Gordon actually thanked me for the correction, admitting I was correct about de Lubac.
But Taylor disagrees with Feingold. He hopes to transcend the “natural” or “elicited” debate. It is not an endorsement of “two-Enders” like Feingold
So in the dissertation he makes a list of the “one Enders” and “two Enders” and cites Bellarmine as being a one Ender”
To the point about him destroying the gratuitous part of being ordered to the beatific vision, I think Taylor would emphasize the fact that, although Thomas said it was natural, he did not say it was innate and that fact coupled with the desire of a supernatural gift is kind of on the same level as a desire for the beatific vision in a way. I appreciate your reply! I wasn’t yelling early I was just being very precise lol
@@decluesviews2740 Regarding St. Thomas Aquinas' statement in the Summa Contra Gentiles that every created intellect "naturally desires to see the Divine Substance" one needs to ascertain whether this desire exists from conception/first moment of being or whether this desire arises at some point soon after the age of reason.
Do you agree that the answer to this question makes all the difference?
@@dinovalente2947 No. Because it pertains to rational creatures as such. And it must be kept in mind that the word “desire” does not mean “of the will.” As Fr. Brian Mullady, OP says (a Thomist who defends de Lubac’s point about one, final, supernatural end), it is a desire of the intellect qua intellect. This is true even if someone doesn’t reflexively realize this. That’s why an atheist denying that he has a desire to see God in his essence is still wrong: his intellect does desire this, even if he doesn’t “feel” he does.
Ecclesiastes 1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
1 The words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David, king of Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.
Ecclesiastes 12:12-14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
12 More than these, my son, require not. Of making many books there is no end: and much study is an affliction of the flesh.
13 Let us all hear together the conclusion of the discourse. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is all man:
14 And all things that are done, God will bring into judgment for every error, whether it be good or evil.
My opinion is that there is so much division everywhere. We need lay leaders that can lead. If you all want to start critiquing each other we are in trouble. Talk to each other privately not publicly. It looks petty. We need God and unity. Amen
I did talk to Tim. He agreed I was right. If I see error publicly, I will publicly address it, if I can.
I don't care for the deep hatred that is generated for those attending n.o. mass on those channels. Many parishes do not offer tlm, but have things that are good like 24/7 eucharistic adoration. I have no problem with n.o. and I only speak English, I do not know nor am I interested in learning latin. Does that make me a horrible person? I don't think so.
@@celtickitc Did someone say you were? I may have missed something. This video was a defense of Henri de Lubac against false presentations of his thought.
@Teresa d'Avila I love the pre-conciliar encyclicals as well. Pope St. Leo XIII is one of my favorites. I also love the Encyclicals of John Paul II and Pope Benedict. And Pope Paul VI's Humane Vitae was phenomenal. God gave authority to the magisterium, though, which is higher than the ministerial authority of an individual priest you happen to like. So I would humbly suggest to be careful. We can all 'priest shop' to hear whatever we already agree with. But if anyone tells you to just ignore an ecumenical council, there's reason for caution. There are traditional priests who also rightly the explain Vatican II (as opposed to those who falsely use it for liberal agendas). Let's pray for an increase in orthodox, holy bishops and priests. Pax tecum!
It's been a while since this untrained laymen and recent Catholic revert watched that specific TnT episode, but I gather that the two of them were asserting the HdL held that man can be saved according to natural merit sans church??
Basically
I'm a grad student in philosophy and my research focuses on teleology in nature, so I'm interested in this debate. While I find myself more sympathetic to the Suarezian position, it does often seem that thomists treat de Lubac unfairly. Have you read Andrew Swafford's book on Nature and Grace? If so, what did you think?
I haven't read it yet, but it looks very interesting! I'd like to see how he uses Scheeben as a middle path between the two camps. Look out for a podcast I did with Catholic Culture Podcast recently. It should post in the next day or two.
Thanks DeClue! This was very helpful
You're welcome. I did a more extensive if somewhat less polished (delivery-wise) follow up video with more details. I also just recorded last Friday an interview on this question on the podcast The Logos Project. It should come out in a week or two.
Great stuff, you should check out Brian Holdsworth recent video on Catholicism = Thomism where he gives a similar strawman of the entire nouvelle theologie. I think someone like you could help set him straight as he is much more reasonable than the TnT crowd has gotten as of late. Seems like a lot of Thomists don't approach issues like St. Thomas who was himself censured for a time because his interaction with pagan, read Aristotelian, thought. He's known for steel manning, interacting reasonably with other positions and not allowing any truth to be squandered. I started reading de Lubac shortly after converting from Protestantism which helped because he is focused and conversant in scripture in a way many neo-Thomists (again unlike St. Thomas) frankly are not and have found that almost every depiction of him is a caricature bordering on outright sinful (detraction, lies etc). These folks need to read the section on the ten commandments from the Catechism of Trent, it does not mess around with tarnishing reputations, yet many catholic bloggers right now are making their living doing exactly that (you can see some of their fans commenting rudely on this very video). What a shame. St. Thomas pray for us.
Well said! That's why I do these videos. I don't like seeing people misrepresented and maligned for positions they never held. I expect lies, straw men, and mere rhetoric from the other side; but, I expect a higher standard for those claiming to be orthodox, devout Catholics. Thanks for your support and encouragement. Check out my blog on Wix, too: Sapientia Nulliformis.
Thanks for this! I now feel I'm more properly disposed and informed for reading de Lubac and other council fathers. Great points
Cool
Conciliar and post-conciliar theology is a bunch of heretical world salad.
I like him then.
I personally had to remove my children from the heresies in the Novus ordo church. I found Catholic orthodoxy in SSPX
John Citizen You are making judgements contrary to what the last two Popes have said. Putting yourself above them yourself. You are wrong my friend. I adhere to all the dogmas of the faith especially that one which is why I seek instruction from fully orthodox priests of the Society of St Pius the Tenth. I've yet to meet a Novus Ordo priest who adheres to this particular dogma of the faith. That is precisely why the SSPX has a problem with Rome. (New church) priests bow to pressure to accept the modernist hermeneutics of discontinuity. Vatican two wrongly states that Catholics and Moslems pray to the same God etc. I am a Catholic because I hold ALL the teachings of the faith. You can disagree with error even when it comes from a Pope that doesn't mean you dont accept his authority in principle! Like I along with a number of Cardinals disagree that people living in sin should approach Our Lord in the Lord in the blessed Sacrament. That doesn't make you outside the church! That makes you Catholic. Jesus please convert Pope Francis!
I would like you and Marshall and/or Gordon to have discussion.
I would, too. I find the division between the strict neo-schokastics and the Communio school (more precise and accurate than "nouvelle theologie") one of the saddest divisions in the Church today. We need to unite against modernism and liberalism. I am open to receiving criticism of the Communio school, but I can't accept their criticisms, because I've spent decades studying the Communio school, and thus I see their portrayal thereof to be too inaccurate for their criticisms to apply.
DeClue's Views: what is the difference between being scholastic and neo-scholastic?
@@hawthornetree646 Great question! Of course, it is difficult to answer exhaustively in a thread such as this, but I will try to give a concise idea.
Scholasticism more or less began in the 12th Century and went roughly until the 16th Century. It was marked mainly by its method: the Scholastic Method. One aspect of that method involved reading an important work or author (e.g., a Book of the Bible), then read related texts (e.g., St. Augustine on a related topic), then note any points of tension between them, and through rational argumentation try to reconcile them as best as possible to show that they were not contradictory. Another component is the disputation, where a question would be posed, and one would use various biblical and Patristic sources to answer the question. Others would then respond, perhaps citing other Fathers or passages to dispute what the first person said, and then the discussion would go back and forth.
High Scholasticism finds its zenith in the 13th Century, with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, who, while they agreed on many things, also disagreed on some key points of philosophy and theology. On matters of doctrine, they would often agree on what the doctrine was but disagree on how to understand or explain it. On other matters, like the Universal Hylomorphism or certain uses of Aristotle's thought or whether the Incarnation would have happened without the fall, they might disagree, both were still considered legitimate, orthodox opinions to have in such instances.
Late Scholasticism started moving away from High Scholasticism with the advent of nominalism and voluntarist thought (think Ockham and Scotus).
In the 15th and 16th Centuries, Scholasticism started to fall out of favor, except perhaps in the Dominican Order (thank goodness!). During that time period, commentators on Aquinas like Cajetan and Súarez began to try to develop Aquinas's thought. They wouldn't always agree, so there would be different "schools" and disagreements, but the general attempt was the same: to further develop what was there.
In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, you had a sort of revival, called "neo-scholasticism," that typically focused narrowly on Aquinas or his commentators (like Cajetan and Súarez). Some contend that it started to be overly influenced by rationalism. It wanted--I think laudably--to revive the wisdom of the High Scholastics for our own day. It did, thus, also involve some engagement with modern thought in order to respond to it, which inevitably did lead to some alterations or new formulations not found in the Scholastics themselves. The pupils of great masters are often not as good as the masters themselves, and sometimes this leads to a de-volution in thought.
It could be argued that it proceeds too rigidly according to a given philosophical system, almost giving priority to that system over and against Scripture and the Patristic tradition. In its most rigid form it was developed into theological manuals that had a precise answer for every question and did not allow for much disputation. Every question had a set answer and further questions may not be admitted. Then again, that might not be true for all neo-Scholastics. But in general, in seminaries and theology schools, it was common that one would read the manuals and not, for instance, the Summa Theologiae, itself.
Where the critique of some like Etienne Gilson and de Lubac comes in is that they sometimes found that the manuals and the commentators (like Cajetan and Súarez) were not really faithful to the original thinkers like Aquinas. While that is not--per se--an argument against their thought, it did lead to a desire to go back to the source (resourcement), to read Aquinas himself again with fresh eyes and not simply reply on the later commentators. Even further, there was a desire to go back to the Patristic Period as well as to the Bible itself to read those sources again to see if there was any treasure that ought to be brought back to light.
I would argue that what those like de Lubac and Gilson were doing was going back to doing what Aquinas and Bonaventure were doing: reading Scripture and the Fathers as well as the High Scholastics, looking for pearls of wisdom, and elucidating what was found, which sometimes led to the rejection of "perversions" of Thomas that took place later.
I argue that this is very different than what a lot of the "nouvelle theologie" folks on the left were doing, which was more "aggiornamento" and modernist. That's why I do not like the constant lumping in of de Lubac, von Balthasar, and Ratzinger in with the likes of Schillebeeckx and Küng: they aren't the same thing; not even close. And to paint them as part of a common school is erroneous.
In many ways, de Lubac was a Thomist. He just argued against the neo-Thomists who followed the commentarial tradition that he found wanting in comparison to Thomas himself.
DeClue's Views: thank you for your reply! I was a philosophy major at a Catholic university so have some familiarity with Aquinas but I never studied theology. Isn’t vin Balthasar the theologian who theorized that hell us empty?
@@hawthornetree646 You're most welcome! (Please like the video to support.) Regarding von Balthasar, I am glad you brought that up. I may do a video on it sometime. In short: NO! I have heard Marshall and Taylor repeatedly give that impression, but NO! It all started with a press conference in Rome where he was besieged by questions about hell, so he wrote a work called "A Short Discourse on Hell." That received criticism, so he wrote "Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved?" as a further response.
I read the book, and while I do not agree with it, it is not universalist. He does not think hell is empty. Rather, the book is more about the theological virtue of hope and its limits (or lack thereof) than a speculation about how many people are in hell. Hope is the virtue between two vices/errors: presumption and despair. In presumption, one assumes everyone will be saved and thus dismisses the need to be too concerned about repentance and holiness and conversion, etc. Balthasar rejects that! He also rejects despair, which leads to a sense of "so many people are going to hell and there isn't much we can do about it! Save yourself!" (A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea). He combs scripture, the Church fathers, the scholastics, and presents and analyzes their positions on the question, noting important shifts. Within scripture, he discusses texts that seem to suggest universal salvation and contrasts them with texts that indicate the real danger of damnation for many. And he holds that damnation is a real danger that cannot be taken lightly! To think otherwise would be presumption! And, as we said, that is a sin against the virtue of hope. But, because hope is a theological virtue, and it ought not fail either by privation or excess (despair or presumption), Balthasar says we must have hope for each and every individual human being that ever lived. He thinks we have to take seriously the real possibility of damnation for every human soul (outside the saints) as well as God's universal salvific will. And he holds that the Church has never officially said that any individual is in hell and must be believed to be there (outside of demons).
He thinks we are called to walk the middle-ground of hope, even to hope for all men to be saved without being presumptuous or despairing. For him, both universal salvation (God wills and is able to save all men and thus might) and the damnation of some (or even many) are real possibilities, and neither is certain. It ought too be added that he does affirm that there is no hope for satan or demons; they will be in hell forever, and if a human goes to hell, it is forever.
I am sure that is much different than what you've heard from Taylor Marshall or would have suspected based on what limited comments he makes there.
Now, I will say, I find von Balthasar's position difficult. I find it really, really hard to hope that all men will be saved not because I wouldn't want it, but there seems to be too much evidence to the contrary. In that respect, I feel like he pushes me to evaluate the extent to which I possess the virtue of hope. On the other hand, he similarly challenges those who presume that all will be saved and chastises them to take seriously the real possibility that even many will be damned and to not take that lightly. He pushes the limits of the theological virtue of hope and humbly admits the fact that we really don't know for certain.
In the end, I think it is an excellent treatise on the virtue of hope. Yet, I have to say, I do think that many will be damned, and I can only "hope" that I am not lacking in the theological virtue of hope. But keep in mind: as the title suggests, it is about "DARE we HOPE!" Meaning, it seems quite daring to hope for that, because it doesn't seem likely and two, it is a HOPE, not a thought or a feeling. It isn't "I FEEL" or "I THINK" all will be saved or not. It is a call to "hope" despite how one "feels" on the matter. I suppose it is possible to "hope" that all or most will be saved without thinking that is likely to happen.
I can't get myself to agree with him fully. It is hard to imagine--as Taylor Marshall points out--that the vision of hell given to the children at Fatima was merely a "what could happen" verses a real glimpse. So, I give Balthasar kudos for pushing the virtue of hope to its limits and for trying not to despair nor to be presumptuous like many do. But, in the end, I think the best we can do is hope for every individual that they will be saved (and he kind of says this himself actually), without thinking that a signifanct number will not. (Sorry for the repetitiveness.)
Nice guy but needs to compress a lot
TM -- a pseudo Thomist
"Authentic criticism requires accurate portrayal of the opponent." This is something you need to fully embrace, DeClue, before you attempt to lay it at the feet of others. Would that you might apologize for things far more egregious than an accidental misspelling. LoL.
He has fully embraced it. You are just mad because as a supporter of the SSPX, you need to try to nit pick and find fault with things where there is no fault.
He lives in his parents basement
Wow, that's not true, but way to reinforce the stereotypes that push people away from your kind.
@Aussie Puppies People who don't listen or engage with the actual points but lob unfounded insults instead. That kind. By the way, Tim Gordon actually thanked me for these two videos on de Lubac and admitted I was correct and that he was wrong. You don't have to agree with de Lubac, which I make clear in the video. But their presentation of his thought was inaccurate, and I make the case by showing what de Lubac actually said. To make a personal, nasty attack like she did, only pushes people away from whatever perspective she holds.
Mr. De Clue, what is your purpose in making public profession of things Catholic? Do you understand what is a sense of urgency? Do you understand what is deceitful, double talk? Do you understand how confusion is dangerous to the Sheep? Do you understand how confusion rises?
Mr. DeClue, you are an academic or academically involved. You have been trained in the post-consuliar teaching institutions. Sir, you are not a leader.
Why are you hidden? Why do you not publish a contact?
I am combating those who are distorting and being deceitful. I saw erroneous portrayals of de Lubac's thought, which I have studied. I thus put out a video actually taking the time to present him accurately. Urgency does not excuse false portrayals. I am not hidden. You can contact me via my blog: Sapientia Nulliformis on wixsite.
@@decluesviews2740 Thank you for a direct response. I will respond further to you. In terms of Catholics expressing opinions, we must understand necessities and urgencies. This of course within the authority of the Sacred Historical Magisterium - all double talk aside.
James Nielsen
OMG! How great was this! I am not Catholic, but on some level there was a realization within that this is true and now I have a great deal of homework and research to do. How exciting! I hope my pea sized brain can wrap itself around these concepts.