Please Like this video and Subscribe to my channel. To support my efforts, donate here: donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support To read my blog, go here: declubac.wixsite.com/sapientianulliformis?fbclid=IwAR1Yai3ASu4jEpRxFykawAPk_9JczfXCdUgocQQONTKBT_srV36-W5bYFhQ
Fifty-two years ago, I was surprised into a deep love for the Church, and became a Catholic. I am delighted to begin learning now about Henri de Lubac. And I do appreciate the history that you include in this video, from Aquinas to de Lubac. My favorite line in Scripture (at this moment, because I am thinking about it at this moment!) is 1 John 3:2 -- ..."we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is." "God does not owe this. God does not owe us the grace to attain our final beatitude," So NOW my favorite Bible verse is John 1:16 -- ..."Grace after Grace!" It explains everything, and supports both Humani Generis and what I understand you to be saying de Lubac says. Thank you.
@@susand3668 Glad you found the channel! Just so you know, I now do much more content in my DeClue’s Views Community on the Locals platform. On there, I did a series summarizing de Lubac’s book “Catholicism” chapter by chapter.
Thank you for breaking down De Lubac and the nature/grace discussion in the post conciliar era, it has helped me a lot in furthering my theological studies
Hello I am new to your TH-cam site but I agree that to categorize De Lubac as a modernist is an sign of lack of full understanding of his theology Which by the way is deeply founded on Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. And same of Saint John Paul II many criticize That to which they have little understanding which is the heart and mind of a traditionalist. !! Nice job on your commentary
I'm not familiar with Him but hv read many an allude to him. I am familiar with Garrigou Lagrange OP. I would like to learn more of de Lubac, I feel he and so many others like yourself can shed many shafts of light from yr panoramic view in life! God is wonderful in all his saints.
I just discovered you and what a breath of fresh air! Thank you for sharing your insights with us. I am a great fan of Ratzinger/Benedict and those who sought to return the church to the ecclesiology of the apostolic patristic time. I believe that Vatican two was an attempt to accomplish that goal but it got hyjacked somehow into the mess we have today. So thanks again and keep up the great work you’re doing!
Thank you for your kind words and encouragement! Ratzinger is one of my absolute favorites! My S.T.L. Thesis (Eucharistic ecclesiologies of Petrine Ministry in Zizioulas anf Ratzinger) and S.T.D. Dissertation (Theology of Revelation) are about him. Check out my blog on Wix as well: Sapientia Nulliformis. I have a post dedicated to him as my favorite theologian.
It is actually crazy to me that I’ve been led to believe by trad internet grifters that De Lubac was somehow anti tradition or anti St Thomas. I actually feel cheated out right now
So I watched this new video and I want to, first of all, thank you for going into great detail (especially the history of the matter). This is a truly interesting debate. Of course, I would need to be an actual scholar to fully appreciate and understand the distinctions presented here, until then my participation in this discussion will be marginal. Yet I am trying to understand what I can and I will think about the points raised here (the one concerning divine freedom and justice especially). I had actually never heard of De Lubac's fear that a total separation of nature and Grace might lead to secularism, this fact sheds an admirable light on the theologian's character, all arguments aside. But on this point, I would like to say something and get your perspective if you have the time: when we say that God is man's final end, couldn't we give this a natural as well as a supernatural meaning? I mean that if Cajetan is correct and God designed man's nature for a "purely natural beatitude" that is entirely within his capacities, it would still only exist as a complete ordering of all the faculties to God as creator and legislator (natural law). In that sense, human happiness could never, even in a natural sense, be divorced from God. Secularism would still be an error in a well-ordered world because nothing can ever be independent of God and all affairs would have to be ordered to the transcendent if human happiness is to be achieved. Thus, even a "purely natural man" would have to "rest in God", in a sense, to be happy. What I mean is, we always have to "know and love God" in order to be happy, it's just that supernatural Grace allows us the incredible possibility of "knowing and loving Him" according to His essence, as He knows and loves Himself. Of course, there is also the argument that we live in a world marred by original sin and that thus even if natural beatitude were possible in a perfect world, it is not possible in the real world. We need Grace even to avoid corruption and evil in our natural pursuits. We are broken beings unable to heal ourselves, hence we need Christ. As far as the last point about the total freedom of God, there's a lot of food for thought there that must be considered. We don't want to go too far in the direction of "complete freedom" and turn the Trinity into the God of Islam that is "so free" that he doesn't even have to abide by logic and can change his mind. Not saying De Lubac believes that of course, but it's something we have to carefully think about. I have to say that I have also found that sometimes "traditionalism" is not an expression of authentic Tradition, that's the unfortunate state we're in now due to all of the mess in the Church. I think sometimes well-meaning Catholics can get very defensive because they're understandably afraid of being infected with modernism and may cling steadfast to positions that are not necessarily Traditional in the true sense of the word. I would love to see you and Dr. Marshall have a show, you seem like a very reasonable thinker.
The secularists (evolutionists) have looked around and said maybe we were wrong. Man seems naturally religious. Now there are literally thousands upon thousands of religions out there than humans are participating in. So is having a natural desire to be religious the same as a desire to see the beatific vision?
The reason that the reason the natural desire for the beatific vison isn't demanding of God is because nature is gratuitous in and of itself. That is if I understand de Lubac correctly and if I can sum that idea up in a sentence. One gift meant to be fulfilled with another gift does not render gratuity less. Regarding the concept of divine freedom, I think part of the issue is the prevalence of a Nominalistic view of freedom. For Aquinas, freedom is the ability to act as desired, to attain what is acted for, and to do so well. Or to be free to act good. God is good. What he desires is good. He acts perfectly, and attains what he wants. In all he's does he is free, because nothing but himself informs his actions. And since God is simple, his freedom is his intellect, is his justice, is his mercy. There is never a disagreement within God. If God desires to give us grace, it is by definition gratuitous, because nothing acts prior to him. I think Cajetan's mistake is taking a Nominalistic viewpoint of freedom, which we all largely share today. This view is that freedom is the ability to decide between two corollaries without prior influence. In this way, if God thinks something is good, he should be able to act against it. If this is true, then God must be able to deny us grace even if he thinks giving us grace is good. Therefore, if it is good to give grace to something which naturally desires it, it places a demand on the freedom of God. It becomes a catch twenty two, unless you assume that we do not desire grace naturally. This becomes a huge issue as Baius and Jansen begin their heresies.
I tend towards your line of thinking on the nature of divine freedom. I limited my paper for the course to giving the major outlines of both sides' perspectives in order to show that the real disagreement is over divine freedom, but no one was really expressing it in the discussions so they're talking past each other. I have refrained from doing so myself simply because I haven't had time to research it thoroughly, but my own intuitions from the beginning line up with your post quite closely.
@@decluesviews2740 deLubac traces the historical trend away from a Thomistic view of "nature" and therefore Divine freedom pretty well in his book "Augustinianism in Modern Theology." I believe "Surnaturel" covers the same topic, but as I have yet to master French, I haven't had the chance to read it. (Someone really needs to translate that into English. I can't believe the book which kinda set this whole powder keg off has never been translated.) Servais Pinckaers covers a similar topic in view of the changes Cajetan casually introduced to the nominalism of Denys into Thomism, largely in the name of owning the Scotists (if you'll give me the expression), except focusing on morality in general, not solely on grace. I find it interesting that the Neo-Thomists held Cajetan in such high regard when he was less a positive Thomist than he was a negative Anti-Scotist. Pinckaers quotes him as saying "The one way to know Thomas is wrong is if he agrees with Scotus." I'm sure you've done more research into this than I have, and I have no doubt you've read these works already, but I thought I'd suggest them in case you hadn't.
@@josephmoya5098 Thanks for your comments. I did read the "Augustinianism in Modern Theology" book for my paper. I think it was actually in that book that I had my "a-ha!" moment, when I finally realized what de Lubac was actually trying to say. Regarding a Thomist understanding of "nature," I'm open to being wrong, but I think he was actually arguing that his presentation was more authentically faithful to Aquinas, whereas Cajetan was distorting by trying to make it seem like Aquinas agreed with Denys, even though Denys was explicitly arguing against Aquinas. It's a complex issue to be sure. I hope to do more research on it in the future. I did study French for reading knowledge as part of my graduate work, but I've done a lot more reading in German. I too never read Surnaturel. It is a shame it was never translated. I do wonder if some of the criticisms of de Lubac were more legitimate with respect to that book and less so to his later development of the idea. But until I get the motivation to read it in French or someone finally publishes it in English, I won't be able to tell. I'm surprised that Ratzinger's dissertation on Augustine was never translated. I have the Germany, but hopefully Ignatius Press will do that soon as their translating the collected works from Herder.
Good video. A worry and some questions: If God gave only an unconditionally chosen elect group the grace necessary to attain their final end (and freely passed over the rest), would De Lubac consider this an injustice? If yes, then on what basis? If no, then does he also view the Calvinist doctrine of God as unjust or not?
Just seeing this today. Sorry for delayed response. I haven't seen him address this directly, but from what I've read I would say this: 1) no, it wouldn't be "unjust" since it isn't owed to anyone, hence it isn't owed to anyone simply because it was given to others; 2) I'm not that knowledgeable of Calvin's doctrine of God, but if you mean double-predestination then it might depend. In general, Insofar as it overlaps with question 1, no, it wouldn't be unjust; but it would be gravely erroneous nonetheless, because we know that's not how God works. I'm also not sure to what extent Calvin's notion of elected for damnation goes. If he asserts a positive will to damn people from eternity that could be a problem, I'd imagine. But I don't know enough of Calvin and I've not seen anything in de Lubac addressing that. It is a good question though. If in question one, someone died without being offered grace necessary for salvation but also didn't merit damnation, would de Lubac hypothesize a form of limbo? That would seem to imply the two ends he's trying to avoid. However, we should be fair and admit that de Lubac is precisely and explicitly disinterested in hypotheticals contrary to facts on this matter. It's part of his point. He already admits that God could have created an intelligent creature without ordering him to beatitude and without offering grace, but he poignantly asks: what does that have to do with me (or any of us)?
@@decluesviews2740 , thanks for the reply. Have you read Swafford's Nature and Grace which sources Fr. Scheeban as a (possible) middle way between De Lubac and his Thomist critics? I have not read it yet, but if you have I'm curious of your thoughts.
@@JohnDeRosa1990 I have not read Stafford's book. Hopefully, I will be able to one day. I have also been eager to read Matthias Scheeben. There's new translations of his work being done in part by a fellow CUA grad. Alas, I have other projects to work on at the moment.
Could you present the Thomistic explanation of Man's personal freedom & of God's freedom by their explanation of the nature of sufficient and efficient grace? I hv come across many explanations. That hv not done justice to it. Fr Reginald Garrigou Lagrange (OP) book "Grace" in explanation to grace's nature onthologically has helped me in this as within its explanation, mystery is invoked. Rightly so, as " who can know the mind of God". The principle lies in this paraphrase," God is the source of Man's freedom." Our intellectual arguments must bring us to the question,if we have understood the difficulty of the argument rightly postulated, "why does God favour the thief on the right and permits the resistance to grace to the one on the left?" St Augustine and St Thomas answer, "Do not try to answer UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE. " A mystery for contemplation. I agree to yr talk above but wld like to ask how does God give supernatural grace to those outside the Church? ...as this will inform us on our approach to other religions ....and to the many pantheistic approaches of the New Age. I'm afraid I hv to disagree with you on the Pancahamama issue and take the Holy Father's stand.maybe on another day. God bless. We need the Intellect to examine these issues and u hv presented de Lubac's case quite dispassionately to yr credit. (Unfortunately I haven't read de Lubac but I believe he is Thomistic in his approach from Fr Lagrange's Thomistic books. )
I am confused- why would Catholic theologians worry if a concept went “against “ a statement made by Aristotle??? I can see if against what the apostles or Bible clearly stated. So, why is adherence to a pagan the gold standard of understanding God and our relationship to Him???
Thanks for your question. I understand that it seems strange. Maybe I can offer some thoughts. Firstly, they were willing to criticize Aristotle, some rather severely, while others gave him more slack. So it wasn't a matter of needing to agree with everything he said. However, he did become to be seen as the best natural philosopher, who epitomized what we could know through natural reason. In particular, his metaphysics (philosophy of being) was highly influential. With respect to this question of nature and grace, the idea is that what we can know through reason and what is revealed by God have the same author, namely, God, and thus can't be in contradiction to each other. And it wasn't so much that "we must believe this because Aristotle said so"; it was more that they were convinced that Aristotle was right on a particular point about essences/natures: that they do not have an innate desire for that which is impossible for them to attain through their natural powers. Convinced this is correct, certain theologians began finding ways of understanding the relationship between nature and grace accordingly. But, of course, there are disputes about whether and how that can or should be done. One thing to keep in mind, is that Aristotle himself had no idea about divine revelation, so it wasn't on his radar, and so it wasn't a question he treated. But, Aquinas was familiar with Aristotle and revelation, of course, and he tackled the question in a brilliant way. And through the centuries divergent understandings, interpretations, and developments of Aquinas's thought have emerged, leading to theological disputes. Sorry for the long answer, but in short: it was not so much that Aristotle said it, so much as Aristotle's arguments convinced a lot of people, and so they took seriously what they think he got right when thinking about such things.
@@decluesviews2740 I am so appreciative of the time you have taken to explain this. It was a very helpful answer. I have really enjoyed the two videos of yours I have watched so far. In an emotionally charged environment within our own faith community, it is so refreshing to have someone reasonably, calmly but fearlessly tackle big questions. It appears you are more interested in the pursuit of truth than in taking a side, which is enormously refreshing. God bless you.
@@mariac4602 Thank you for the kind words. What you said is very important to me. The temptation to strawman opposing views is strong, but it must be resisted. It bothers me when theologians I have studied are misrepresented, whether I agree with them or not. No truth can be found in misrepresenting or mislabeling them. You can disagree with de Lubac, for instance, without mislabeling him a modernist (which he most certainly isn’t). Yet many try to forgo rational discussion by emotionally appealing to charged language that is factually inaccurate. That doesn’t help.
I found this to be an interesting discussion. I am outside the fold of Catholicism myself. Your defence of De Lubac seems well considered. But what strikes me, a relative outsider, as alien in these kinds of debates, is the blanket appeal to the authority of the tradition. Doubtless this reflects a core enlightenment assumption on my behalf. Even so, I don't see why it should be so scandalous, even for a Catholic, that a genius from the 13th century could have got some things wrong? Unless the argument is that everything St Thomas wrote was a result of a direct conduit he had to God, but that would be to cast him in the role of Mohammad! There obviously is a core set of non-negotiable Catholic beliefs, but must 'modern' be an altogether dirty word?
Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure if you watched the first video to which this one is Part II. It might help give you some context. In at least one of the videos, I make the point that on this topic there are two points to be discussed: 1) which interpretation/elucidation of Aquinas's (de Lubac's or neo-Thomists') thought is more accurate and 2) which position is correct based on the merits of the argument. I explicitly state that those are distinct questions. So, no, it isn't too "scandalous" for me that a single thinker in the 13th Century could have made a mistake. And that is what Denys the Carthugian was arguing. At the same time, precisely due to Aquinas's unique status in the history of Catholic thought as a giant among giants, it is important to try to understand what he said as well as consider his positions carefully when entering into the discussion. Tradition is a big part of Catholic theology. Nevertheless, see my video about the place of Aquinas in theology for my position, which is that he deserves a serious place but that he shouldn't be the only voice: others before and since are also important. (I'm a huge fan of Bonaventure and Ratzinger for instance. Neither are "thomists.") Furthermore, the impetus for these two videos was the charge by some neo-Thomists that de Lubac is a modernist. My main project was to show that their presentation of de Lubac was inaccurate and then to explain what de Lubac actually said about the issue. Part of what I was arguing against was the charge that de Lubac is a modernist. He isn't. Regarding the "anything modern" comment: the term "modernism" has a specific, important, complex history and meaning in Catholic philosophy and theology. It can't be fully addressed in this comment nor even in the videos which presuppose some familiarity with that term's technical meaning, which isn't as facile as 'anything after year 'X' is bad. It has to do with specific philosophical errors that were rejected and condemned by the Catholic magisterium. Sadly, too many "traditionalists" will label everything modernist, which can become absurd. I hope that helps!
@@decluesviews2740 Thank you for your detailed response! In fact, I watched your other video on the distinction between Orthodoxy and Theology after I posted this, which was also helpful. I guess it is the 'magisterium' that does the work in this respect. I had also watched the discussion between (I think) Gordan and Taylor, you were addressing. That discussion, I must admit, I did find a little off putting. Possibly, my remarks above were largely a delayed reaction to that discussion, rather than your video. Because I' am, actually, quite intellectually curious about Christianity and Catholicism, but that discussion gave me the vague impression that it might be hard to balance intellectual honesty with a devotion to the tradition. I myself don't have a very extensive theological knowledge, though i've almost finished my PhD in philosophy (on Hegel). In this context, the concept of 'modernity' is often bound up with an emphasis on our self-creative capacities. I'm beginning to have strong suspicions that this emphasis is really an overemphasis. So when, somewhere or other, you said something about Grace being required because of the the internal deficiency or contradiction in natural reason (perhaps you didn't quite phrase it this way), that's a view that seems to me very appealing. In any case, there's still a huge distance between recognising something like this and being prepared to commit to all the particular doctrines of Catholicism. But I do plan to go back and read Aquinas when i'm done with this damn PhD.
@@MeisterBeefington Thank you for watching my videos. Taylor Marshall's videos are a major reason I started doing theology videos. I am a fairly traditional, committedly orthodox Catholic Theologian. Watching his videos was disturbing me, because he preys upon people's traditional sentiments in a Pep Rally fashion but often is not presenting certain people's theology accurately, giving false impressions of heterodoxy. I wanted to provide a more nuanced and accurate presentation of these matters. Congrats on your PhD work! As someone studying Hegel, you may be one of the few people I'd recommend Rahner to. He's what they call a transcendental thomist. Certain parts of his "Foundations of Christian Faith" may have connections to your own studies. Additionally, Ratzinger's book "Theology of History in St. Bonaventure" would be an avenue for exploring the importance of history from a scholastic mindset. Of course, I do encourage you to read more Aquinas when you have the time! A hallmark of Catholicism is intellectual integrity and the search for truth as paramount. Familiarity with the tradition, in my view, is necessary to help make sound progress in any science, theology included. The danger of certain modern philosophies was the tendency to make each person disconnected and automous, starting over from scratch. That doesn't aid in advancing thought. It usually leads to degradation and makes anyone's thought almost passé as soon as it is finished. Also, consider Ratzinger's "The Nature and Mission of Theology." It's a great and fairly easy read!
First, would the issue of Communio which would have the article you are recommending be available in digital format? Second, wouldn’t the issue of God not owing us the saving grace of access to His Divine Life be answered in the biblical account that our nature as He created it is fallen. For a greater good (oh happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam that gained for us so great a Redeemer from the Easter Vigil Exultet) He permitted Adam and Eve to lose their supernatural life by their free choice so that, in His foresight, the fallen nature transmitted to us from our first parents is still created for its ultimate fulfillment of eternal life, but totally dependent on His grace of redemption. Our fallen nature is subject to the natural tyranny of its animal instincts and helpless of itself to attain what we were created to be.
If I remember correctly, von Balthasar, Danielou, and de Lubac advocated the New Theology. In this article, Fr. David Greenstock argues that Pope Pius XII condemned it. Thomism and the New Theology (Greenstock).pdf (arizona.edu)
There's a lot of misunderstanding about this topic. The "new theology" is not really a monolithic group or a specific theology, and de Lubac explicitly rejected the claim that his theology was "new." The term is mostly unhelpful, as it is merely an adjective that some people use to label a wide variety of figures. I did an interview on Catholic Culture's channel/podcast that might help. In general, de Lubac and von Balthasar are actually quite conservative and traditional. They were for a ressourcement, not the same camp at all as the nouvelle théologie folks pushing progressive & liberal ideologies.
@@decluesviews2740 Maybe they were conservative. But years ago, after their books convinced me to withdraw from a Master's degree program at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dr. Scott Hahn emailed me to say that he agreed with Greenstock. Here's another paper about the New Theology. www.scribd.com/document/353425559/Where-is-the-New-Theology-Leading-Us-Garrigou-Lagrange-Reginald-O-P
@@williammcenaney1331 I have already read Garrigou-Lagrange's essay article as part of a doctoral seminar course on the nouvelle théologie. It's mostly against Bouillard as Dr. Minerd has pointed out in his solo videos and joint video with me on Reason & Theology's channel. Again, though, you're making the mistake of lumping ressourcement theologians under the same umbrella as very different thinkers. I am a fan of both Garrigou-Lagrange and de Lubac and Ratzinger (who was highly influenced by de Lubac). I'm more or less in the camp of Levering with a caveat that I discuss in that joint discussion with Dr. Minerd. I asked Scott Hahn this very issue: what do you say to those who say the Communio theologians and Thomism are incompatible or even call the former modernists. He gave a very good answer. He basically said Garrigou-Lagrange was his favorite 20th C theologian while Ratzinger was his second, de Lubac he thought was wrong on nature and grace but for all the right reasons (N.B. wrong doesn't mean heretical or modernist, it was a dispute about what proper Thomism is on the question. He advocates for what Levering is doing: ressourcement Thomism. You can see his remarks on Pints with Aquinas's interview with Scott Hahn about his conversion (published about 3 months ago). He answers my question starting around 1:23:45
@@decluesviews2740 You know much more theology than I'll ever know because my computer science and philosophy are my fields. Since you're the expert here, I'm happy to admit that I may be making the mistake you believe I'm making. But it seems to me that if you read or reread Fr. Greenstock's article, the one Dr. Hahn agrees with, it'll tell you that Pope Pius XII wrote about de Lubac in Humani Generis when in that encyclical, he condemned the new theology. If you read the article below, you'll learn about a bishop who banned Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity because he, the bishop, thought it was too liberal. www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/04/26/a-tale-of-two-cardinals/ If you wonder about other reasons why Ratzinger's theology troubles me, please read his book "Theological Highlights of Vatican II," where you'll know he believes that convergence with non-Catholics needs to replace their conversion to Catholicism. But, thank God, he says that non-Catholics may still become Catholics when their consciences urge them to do that. From my fallible perspective, de Lubac, von Balthasar, and Ratzinger are at least material modernists. Why does Ratzinger believe that conversion is an option, though not a requirement for non-Catholics? Maybe that's because of Vatican II's novel distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. I say "novel" because, in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII teaches that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Ch]urch of Christ is not, in my opinion, a property that denominations have, too, when the Catholic Church has it fully. Please see Fr. Ripperger's video "Why Remain Catholic" to know why the "new Church of Christ" includes non-Catholic religions. If everyone is in the Church of Christ distinct from the Catholic Church, why bother evangelizing non-Catholics? Or so religiously indifferent ecumenists would ask. Let me post a link to Fr. Ripperger's video. th-cam.com/video/aovDj89-D4A/w-d-xo.html Another point about Ratzinger,. Please tell me why he calls Gaudium et Spes a "counter-syllabus" in his book "Principles of Catholic Theology." to allude Bl. Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. In that document, that pope condemns religious indifferentism and the idea that there's good reason to hope that non-Catholics will go to heaven. Pope John Paul seems modernist to me, too, when I recall his Assisi meetings. Since Modernists stay agnostic about whether there's anything supernatural, they believe that divine revelation happens inside us. For them, it's a feeling. So I suspect that JPII kissed the Qu'ran, let a pagan try to exorcise him, and allowed other pagan practices because he wanted to respect how the pagans and other people felt. After all, modernists believe, God may be revealing himself to members of any religion. I'm a staunch Catholic traditionalist who attends only the Traditional Latin Mass when I do go to Mass. And the only kind of ecumenism I support is the ecumenism Pius XII wrote about in 1949, ecumenism meant to help non-Catholics become Catholics.
@@williammcenaney1331 I appreciate your reply, and I apologize in advance for not being able to respond quickly and fully. I have family visiting from out of state this week, plus I have several work projects to do, all while coordinating a move. I've also gotten multiple messages from multiple people asking me questions about things, so my time is limited and my attention severly divided. I appreciate the resources you're sending, but I cannot look at all of them at present. At this moment, I'm rushing, since I have a couple of errands to run before getting my children to a play date with their cousins. But I'll be on a road trip to Texas soon, so I don't know when else I'll be able to respond. I think the term 'modernist' is thrown around too loosely. Even when people could be called heretics or in error, modernism is not always the accurate category, but it is used so often for people who do not fit the description. In fact, I think hearing people called modernist by others tends to create a distorted lens from which people then approach figures who are completely undeserving of the label. Modernism is typically exhibited--as you indicated--by agnosticism or a sense that all doctrines are really just an expression of subjective religious experience. I have studied Ratzinger widely and in-depth, and I see no indication of that in him whatsoever. My STL Thesis and Doctoral Dissertation were about him, I've taught course on him, my doctoral 'lectio' dealt with him on the Church and salvation, I've taught a college course on him, and I've published two articles about him, and I'm currently writing a book on his theology. I've never come across anything resembling the remarks you attribute to him about convergence without conversion. I'm not saying it isn't there; I'm saying I have not come across that concept, and I'd have to read the specific chapter in which the phrase takes place to discuss it further. Likewise, I do not see modernism as such in de Lubac or JP II. In fact, I'd say that all three are very much against modernism, so defined, since they all adhere to the knowability of truth and the absolute truth of Catholic Christianity. Read 'Dominus Iesus' issued by the CDF under Ratzinger and approved by JP II just as an example. Your interpretations of Assisi do not gel with his theology or magisterial texts at all. While Assisi still boggles my mind, I don't think it was due to religious indifferentism. I tend to suspect that JP II, knowing that ours is the only true God, was operating under the hope that the event would open up non-Christians to Christianity more, removing barriers to their investigation into Christianity and thus leading to more conversions. It does seem that there are more Muslim conversions and more conversions in Africa and Asia. I'm not sure if there is a causal correlation or not. And even if I find it problematic, I don't think JP II's motivation was indifferentism. JP II and Ratzinger are both committed to ecumenism but not as a replacement for evangelization; it's actually meant to aid in the process of evangelization. Ecumenism literally just means having conversations in a peaceable manner with non-Catholic Christians to discuss similarities and disagreements out of mutual respect and a common commitment to search for the truth. It helps expose non-Catholics to Catholicism, and helps us learn more about their perspective so that we can more effectively respond to their actual issues rather than attacking strawmen with which they don't associate themselves. Von Balthasar, by the way, wrote a brilliant short book against false ecumenism, entitled "In the Fullness of Faith: on the Centrality of the Distinctively Catholic." He certainly wasn't an indifferentist, and Ratzinger was one of the most vocal people against indifferentism and relativism. I've tackled the 'subsistit in' question elsewhere. I may even have a video clip on my channel that deals with it. I find it fascinating when supposedly conservative/traditional Catholics try to argue that 'subsistit' means what liberals or progressives would like it to mean. The source material suggests that the phrase was recommended to the Council by one of the most traditional Fathers, Sebastian Tromp. It indicates a transtemporal perduring through time via a personal mode of existence. The Baltimore Catechism even uses the verb to discuss the Church's continuation throughout time. The Persons of the Trinity are defined by Aquinas as 'subsistent relations.' The CDF (under Ratzinger) even issued a very explicit explanation of the term in Communionis Notio, which outright rejects notions that the Church could be said to 'subsist' in other communities as well. But it is just a fact that 'elements' or 'accidental features' of church are present in other communities, such as baptism, and in the case of the Orthodox, even aposotlic succession. That's just a reality. There's nothing contrary to fact or Catholicism in admitting that. And Vatican II is very clearly not in favor of religious indifferentism. I remember being shocked by the 'counter-syllabus' comment as well, although I haven't studied it in depth. I'd need to revisit it to give a fuller treatment. Even upon doing so, I still may be willing to admit that I don't like his comments there. Although, I'm also not sure it means what people may think it means. Again, I'd have to study it more in depth. From what I gather/recollect, his point had to do with the fact that the Syllabus was 'one-sided' insofar as it only stated what was to be rejected from modern developments without specifying in what ways or how the Church should engage with the modern world in addition to rejecting those errors. It doesn't mean that those aren't errors. But it does mean that we still have to address how to engage with our times on a practical level: what do we think about democracy and how do we act in countries that are de facto not 'Catholic' countries, etc. How do we engage with the sciences, etc. In that sense, a counter-syllabus is a complementary counter-part to the negative rejection via an explication of what we can or should also do in addition to rejecting the errors. But, again, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'd have to do a complete study to know for sure. I remember liking "Principles" more than "Introduction," but also whincing at that phrasing, so I get the concern. Just as an aside: I attend the TLM almost every week, with some N.O. here and there. I did a video explaining why I go to the TLM in case you ever want to check that out.
Not even close. It’s comments like your comment that makes it hard to take y’all seriously. You throw around the term modernist where it doesn’t apply as if doing so is an actual argument.
@@decluesviews2740 Nah. You keep pushing de Lubac and his modernist mush. It's part of the "Word on Fire" Vatican II propaganda drive. Advice to others: read Lawrence Feingold on this topic. And remember that Grace perfects Nature, and not everyone winds up in Heaven, no matter what Bp Barron says. And Vatican II was a failed council.
@@SaltyPalamite This just further proves your ignorance. Feingold disagrees with de Lubac on this point, but he doesn’t think he’s a modernist. The debate is about how to properly interpret Thomas. Also, I think you meant grace perfects nature; de Lubac agrees! That’s actually a huge part of his point: nature can’t perfect itself. Feingold actually likes a lot of de Lubac’s other works, too. Also, Bishop Barron doesn’t say everyone goes to heaven. That’s a gross misrepresentation. He’s clarified that so many times. He agrees with von Balthasar that we are all in danger of going to hell and have to take that seriously.
@@decluesviews2740 I edited my comment because I had not had my first cup of coffee. Yes, grace perfects nature. :- ) Re: Bp Barron, even Ralph Martin has called out his quasi-universalism. You seem like a bright guy. Stop dealing with Vatican II theology. It's all horse manure, and appeals to people who are not interested in the analytical precision that Thomism demands.
"De Lubac is a modernist" is a claim that could serve as the conclusion of an argument, but "period" is not a warrant for that claim. I have read tons of de Lubac, and a lot of what popular commentators say about him is false. Tim Gordon himself actually expressed appreciation to me and on Twitter for correcting his mistakes. I am open to being corrected as well, as long as there is good evidence. But as one who studied him on this question for doctoral work, it would take some well-argued and accurately cited texts to convince me of your conclusion. Stating "period" doesn't cut it.
Yes, Mr Tan, plse give us yr rationale? Maybe just 1 and we can hv a conversation.Too many very hard to address in this platform. It is always good to share the Faith in charity....
@@decluesviews2740 i found this very helpful on de Lubac, and I think it seems odd that neo-thomists seem to like Etienne Gilson though he seems closer to de Lubac. Are you familiar with the Reformed(Calvinistic) view of the donum concreatum as distinct from the neo-thomist donum superadditum? This being that the gift of original righteousness being an accidental, amissible yet constitutive attribute of human identity. The loss of this grace in the Fall, being a real change in man qua man, without destroying his humanity. And consequently redemption is the elevation of human nature to a state of supernatural fulfillment of his nature, this by grace.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
Please Like this video and Subscribe to my channel.
To support my efforts, donate here: donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support
To read my blog, go here: declubac.wixsite.com/sapientianulliformis?fbclid=IwAR1Yai3ASu4jEpRxFykawAPk_9JczfXCdUgocQQONTKBT_srV36-W5bYFhQ
Fifty-two years ago, I was surprised into a deep love for the Church, and became a Catholic.
I am delighted to begin learning now about Henri de Lubac. And I do appreciate the history that you include in this video, from Aquinas to de Lubac.
My favorite line in Scripture (at this moment, because I am thinking about it at this moment!) is 1 John 3:2 -- ..."we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is."
"God does not owe this. God does not owe us the grace to attain our final beatitude," So NOW my favorite Bible verse is John 1:16 -- ..."Grace after Grace!" It explains everything, and supports both Humani Generis and what I understand you to be saying de Lubac says.
Thank you.
@@susand3668 Glad you found the channel! Just so you know, I now do much more content in my DeClue’s Views Community on the Locals platform. On there, I did a series summarizing de Lubac’s book “Catholicism” chapter by chapter.
To paraphrase Newman, to be immersed in tradition is to cease to be a traditionalist (and tradition does predate Trent!)
Thank you for breaking down De Lubac and the nature/grace discussion in the post conciliar era, it has helped me a lot in furthering my theological studies
Hello
I am new to your TH-cam site but I agree that to categorize De Lubac as a modernist is an sign of lack of full understanding of his theology Which by the way is deeply founded on Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. And same of Saint John Paul II many criticize That to which they have little understanding which is the heart and mind of a traditionalist. !! Nice job on your commentary
Yes, Beata, Pope St John Paul2, the Great is an extraordinary saint! Are you familiar with de Lubac?
I'm not familiar with Him but hv read many an allude to him. I am familiar with Garrigou Lagrange OP. I would like to learn more of de Lubac, I feel he and so many others like yourself can shed many shafts of light from yr panoramic view in life! God is wonderful in all his saints.
This is such an amazing channel.
I’m reading this book right now for my Master’s class Theology of Grace.
I just discovered you and what a breath of fresh air! Thank you for sharing your insights with us. I am a great fan of Ratzinger/Benedict and those who sought to return the church to the ecclesiology of the apostolic patristic time. I believe that Vatican two was an attempt to accomplish that goal but it got hyjacked somehow into the mess we have today. So thanks again and keep up the great work you’re doing!
Thank you for your kind words and encouragement! Ratzinger is one of my absolute favorites! My S.T.L. Thesis (Eucharistic ecclesiologies of Petrine Ministry in Zizioulas anf Ratzinger) and S.T.D. Dissertation (Theology of Revelation) are about him. Check out my blog on Wix as well: Sapientia Nulliformis. I have a post dedicated to him as my favorite theologian.
It is actually crazy to me that I’ve been led to believe by trad internet grifters that De Lubac was somehow anti tradition or anti St Thomas. I actually feel cheated out right now
I know. It's really sad and even infuriating.
Oh my gosh. What a breath fresh air. This is super good.
Thank you, May!
So I watched this new video and I want to, first of all, thank you for going into great detail (especially the history of the matter). This is a truly interesting debate. Of course, I would need to be an actual scholar to fully appreciate and understand the distinctions presented here, until then my participation in this discussion will be marginal. Yet I am trying to understand what I can and I will think about the points raised here (the one concerning divine freedom and justice especially). I had actually never heard of De Lubac's fear that a total separation of nature and Grace might lead to secularism, this fact sheds an admirable light on the theologian's character, all arguments aside.
But on this point, I would like to say something and get your perspective if you have the time: when we say that God is man's final end, couldn't we give this a natural as well as a supernatural meaning? I mean that if Cajetan is correct and God designed man's nature for a "purely natural beatitude" that is entirely within his capacities, it would still only exist as a complete ordering of all the faculties to God as creator and legislator (natural law). In that sense, human happiness could never, even in a natural sense, be divorced from God. Secularism would still be an error in a well-ordered world because nothing can ever be independent of God and all affairs would have to be ordered to the transcendent if human happiness is to be achieved. Thus, even a "purely natural man" would have to "rest in God", in a sense, to be happy. What I mean is, we always have to "know and love God" in order to be happy, it's just that supernatural Grace allows us the incredible possibility of "knowing and loving Him" according to His essence, as He knows and loves Himself.
Of course, there is also the argument that we live in a world marred by original sin and that thus even if natural beatitude were possible in a perfect world, it is not possible in the real world. We need Grace even to avoid corruption and evil in our natural pursuits. We are broken beings unable to heal ourselves, hence we need Christ.
As far as the last point about the total freedom of God, there's a lot of food for thought there that must be considered. We don't want to go too far in the direction of "complete freedom" and turn the Trinity into the God of Islam that is "so free" that he doesn't even have to abide by logic and can change his mind. Not saying De Lubac believes that of course, but it's something we have to carefully think about.
I have to say that I have also found that sometimes "traditionalism" is not an expression of authentic Tradition, that's the unfortunate state we're in now due to all of the mess in the Church. I think sometimes well-meaning Catholics can get very defensive because they're understandably afraid of being infected with modernism and may cling steadfast to positions that are not necessarily Traditional in the true sense of the word. I would love to see you and Dr. Marshall have a show, you seem like a very reasonable thinker.
The secularists (evolutionists) have looked around and said maybe we were wrong. Man seems naturally religious. Now there are literally thousands upon thousands of religions out there than humans are participating in. So is having a natural desire to be religious the same as a desire to see the beatific vision?
The reason that the reason the natural desire for the beatific vison isn't demanding of God is because nature is gratuitous in and of itself. That is if I understand de Lubac correctly and if I can sum that idea up in a sentence. One gift meant to be fulfilled with another gift does not render gratuity less.
Regarding the concept of divine freedom, I think part of the issue is the prevalence of a Nominalistic view of freedom. For Aquinas, freedom is the ability to act as desired, to attain what is acted for, and to do so well. Or to be free to act good. God is good. What he desires is good. He acts perfectly, and attains what he wants. In all he's does he is free, because nothing but himself informs his actions. And since God is simple, his freedom is his intellect, is his justice, is his mercy. There is never a disagreement within God. If God desires to give us grace, it is by definition gratuitous, because nothing acts prior to him.
I think Cajetan's mistake is taking a Nominalistic viewpoint of freedom, which we all largely share today. This view is that freedom is the ability to decide between two corollaries without prior influence. In this way, if God thinks something is good, he should be able to act against it. If this is true, then God must be able to deny us grace even if he thinks giving us grace is good. Therefore, if it is good to give grace to something which naturally desires it, it places a demand on the freedom of God. It becomes a catch twenty two, unless you assume that we do not desire grace naturally. This becomes a huge issue as Baius and Jansen begin their heresies.
I tend towards your line of thinking on the nature of divine freedom. I limited my paper for the course to giving the major outlines of both sides' perspectives in order to show that the real disagreement is over divine freedom, but no one was really expressing it in the discussions so they're talking past each other. I have refrained from doing so myself simply because I haven't had time to research it thoroughly, but my own intuitions from the beginning line up with your post quite closely.
@@decluesviews2740
deLubac traces the historical trend away from a Thomistic view of "nature" and therefore Divine freedom pretty well in his book "Augustinianism in Modern Theology." I believe "Surnaturel" covers the same topic, but as I have yet to master French, I haven't had the chance to read it. (Someone really needs to translate that into English. I can't believe the book which kinda set this whole powder keg off has never been translated.)
Servais Pinckaers covers a similar topic in view of the changes Cajetan casually introduced to the nominalism of Denys into Thomism, largely in the name of owning the Scotists (if you'll give me the expression), except focusing on morality in general, not solely on grace. I find it interesting that the Neo-Thomists held Cajetan in such high regard when he was less a positive Thomist than he was a negative Anti-Scotist. Pinckaers quotes him as saying "The one way to know Thomas is wrong is if he agrees with Scotus."
I'm sure you've done more research into this than I have, and I have no doubt you've read these works already, but I thought I'd suggest them in case you hadn't.
@@josephmoya5098 Thanks for your comments. I did read the "Augustinianism in Modern Theology" book for my paper. I think it was actually in that book that I had my "a-ha!" moment, when I finally realized what de Lubac was actually trying to say. Regarding a Thomist understanding of "nature," I'm open to being wrong, but I think he was actually arguing that his presentation was more authentically faithful to Aquinas, whereas Cajetan was distorting by trying to make it seem like Aquinas agreed with Denys, even though Denys was explicitly arguing against Aquinas. It's a complex issue to be sure. I hope to do more research on it in the future. I did study French for reading knowledge as part of my graduate work, but I've done a lot more reading in German. I too never read Surnaturel. It is a shame it was never translated. I do wonder if some of the criticisms of de Lubac were more legitimate with respect to that book and less so to his later development of the idea. But until I get the motivation to read it in French or someone finally publishes it in English, I won't be able to tell. I'm surprised that Ratzinger's dissertation on Augustine was never translated. I have the Germany, but hopefully Ignatius Press will do that soon as their translating the collected works from Herder.
Good video. A worry and some questions: If God gave only an unconditionally chosen elect group the grace necessary to attain their final end (and freely passed over the rest), would De Lubac consider this an injustice? If yes, then on what basis? If no, then does he also view the Calvinist doctrine of God as unjust or not?
Just seeing this today. Sorry for delayed response. I haven't seen him address this directly, but from what I've read I would say this: 1) no, it wouldn't be "unjust" since it isn't owed to anyone, hence it isn't owed to anyone simply because it was given to others; 2) I'm not that knowledgeable of Calvin's doctrine of God, but if you mean double-predestination then it might depend. In general, Insofar as it overlaps with question 1, no, it wouldn't be unjust; but it would be gravely erroneous nonetheless, because we know that's not how God works. I'm also not sure to what extent Calvin's notion of elected for damnation goes. If he asserts a positive will to damn people from eternity that could be a problem, I'd imagine. But I don't know enough of Calvin and I've not seen anything in de Lubac addressing that. It is a good question though. If in question one, someone died without being offered grace necessary for salvation but also didn't merit damnation, would de Lubac hypothesize a form of limbo? That would seem to imply the two ends he's trying to avoid. However, we should be fair and admit that de Lubac is precisely and explicitly disinterested in hypotheticals contrary to facts on this matter. It's part of his point. He already admits that God could have created an intelligent creature without ordering him to beatitude and without offering grace, but he poignantly asks: what does that have to do with me (or any of us)?
@@decluesviews2740 , thanks for the reply. Have you read Swafford's Nature and Grace which sources Fr. Scheeban as a (possible) middle way between De Lubac and his Thomist critics? I have not read it yet, but if you have I'm curious of your thoughts.
@@JohnDeRosa1990 I have not read Stafford's book. Hopefully, I will be able to one day. I have also been eager to read Matthias Scheeben. There's new translations of his work being done in part by a fellow CUA grad. Alas, I have other projects to work on at the moment.
Could you present the Thomistic explanation of Man's personal freedom & of God's freedom by their explanation of the nature of sufficient and efficient grace? I hv come across many explanations. That hv not done justice to it. Fr Reginald Garrigou Lagrange (OP) book "Grace" in explanation to grace's nature onthologically has helped me in this as within its explanation, mystery is invoked. Rightly so, as " who can know the mind of God". The principle lies in this paraphrase," God is the source of Man's freedom." Our intellectual arguments must bring us to the question,if we have understood the difficulty of the argument rightly postulated, "why does God favour the thief on the right and permits the resistance to grace to the one on the left?" St Augustine and St Thomas answer, "Do not try to answer UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE. " A mystery for contemplation. I agree to yr talk above but wld like to ask how does God give supernatural grace to those outside the Church? ...as this will inform us on our approach to other religions ....and to the many pantheistic approaches of the New Age. I'm afraid I hv to disagree with you on the Pancahamama issue and take the Holy Father's stand.maybe on another day. God bless. We need the Intellect to examine these issues and u hv presented de Lubac's case quite dispassionately to yr credit. (Unfortunately I haven't read de Lubac but I believe he is Thomistic in his approach from Fr Lagrange's Thomistic books. )
I am confused- why would Catholic theologians worry if a concept went “against “ a statement made by Aristotle??? I can see if against what the apostles or Bible clearly stated. So, why is adherence to a pagan the gold standard of understanding God and our relationship to Him???
Thanks for your question. I understand that it seems strange. Maybe I can offer some thoughts. Firstly, they were willing to criticize Aristotle, some rather severely, while others gave him more slack. So it wasn't a matter of needing to agree with everything he said. However, he did become to be seen as the best natural philosopher, who epitomized what we could know through natural reason. In particular, his metaphysics (philosophy of being) was highly influential. With respect to this question of nature and grace, the idea is that what we can know through reason and what is revealed by God have the same author, namely, God, and thus can't be in contradiction to each other. And it wasn't so much that "we must believe this because Aristotle said so"; it was more that they were convinced that Aristotle was right on a particular point about essences/natures: that they do not have an innate desire for that which is impossible for them to attain through their natural powers. Convinced this is correct, certain theologians began finding ways of understanding the relationship between nature and grace accordingly. But, of course, there are disputes about whether and how that can or should be done. One thing to keep in mind, is that Aristotle himself had no idea about divine revelation, so it wasn't on his radar, and so it wasn't a question he treated. But, Aquinas was familiar with Aristotle and revelation, of course, and he tackled the question in a brilliant way. And through the centuries divergent understandings, interpretations, and developments of Aquinas's thought have emerged, leading to theological disputes. Sorry for the long answer, but in short: it was not so much that Aristotle said it, so much as Aristotle's arguments convinced a lot of people, and so they took seriously what they think he got right when thinking about such things.
@@decluesviews2740 I am so appreciative of the time you have taken to explain this. It was a very helpful answer. I have really enjoyed the two videos of yours I have watched so far. In an emotionally charged environment within our own faith community, it is so refreshing to have someone reasonably, calmly but fearlessly tackle big questions. It appears you are more interested in the pursuit of truth than in taking a side, which is enormously refreshing. God bless you.
@@mariac4602 Thank you for the kind words. What you said is very important to me. The temptation to strawman opposing views is strong, but it must be resisted. It bothers me when theologians I have studied are misrepresented, whether I agree with them or not. No truth can be found in misrepresenting or mislabeling them. You can disagree with de Lubac, for instance, without mislabeling him a modernist (which he most certainly isn’t). Yet many try to forgo rational discussion by emotionally appealing to charged language that is factually inaccurate. That doesn’t help.
this rocks
I found this to be an interesting discussion. I am outside the fold of Catholicism myself. Your defence of De Lubac seems well considered. But what strikes me, a relative outsider, as alien in these kinds of debates, is the blanket appeal to the authority of the tradition. Doubtless this reflects a core enlightenment assumption on my behalf. Even so, I don't see why it should be so scandalous, even for a Catholic, that a genius from the 13th century could have got some things wrong? Unless the argument is that everything St Thomas wrote was a result of a direct conduit he had to God, but that would be to cast him in the role of Mohammad! There obviously is a core set of non-negotiable Catholic beliefs, but must 'modern' be an altogether dirty word?
Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure if you watched the first video to which this one is Part II. It might help give you some context.
In at least one of the videos, I make the point that on this topic there are two points to be discussed: 1) which interpretation/elucidation of Aquinas's (de Lubac's or neo-Thomists') thought is more accurate and 2) which position is correct based on the merits of the argument. I explicitly state that those are distinct questions. So, no, it isn't too "scandalous" for me that a single thinker in the 13th Century could have made a mistake. And that is what Denys the Carthugian was arguing.
At the same time, precisely due to Aquinas's unique status in the history of Catholic thought as a giant among giants, it is important to try to understand what he said as well as consider his positions carefully when entering into the discussion. Tradition is a big part of Catholic theology. Nevertheless, see my video about the place of Aquinas in theology for my position, which is that he deserves a serious place but that he shouldn't be the only voice: others before and since are also important. (I'm a huge fan of Bonaventure and Ratzinger for instance. Neither are "thomists.")
Furthermore, the impetus for these two videos was the charge by some neo-Thomists that de Lubac is a modernist. My main project was to show that their presentation of de Lubac was inaccurate and then to explain what de Lubac actually said about the issue. Part of what I was arguing against was the charge that de Lubac is a modernist. He isn't.
Regarding the "anything modern" comment: the term "modernism" has a specific, important, complex history and meaning in Catholic philosophy and theology. It can't be fully addressed in this comment nor even in the videos which presuppose some familiarity with that term's technical meaning, which isn't as facile as 'anything after year 'X' is bad. It has to do with specific philosophical errors that were rejected and condemned by the Catholic magisterium. Sadly, too many "traditionalists" will label everything modernist, which can become absurd.
I hope that helps!
@@decluesviews2740 Thank you for your detailed response! In fact, I watched your other video on the distinction between Orthodoxy and Theology after I posted this, which was also helpful. I guess it is the 'magisterium' that does the work in this respect. I had also watched the discussion between (I think) Gordan and Taylor, you were addressing. That discussion, I must admit, I did find a little off putting. Possibly, my remarks above were largely a delayed reaction to that discussion, rather than your video. Because I' am, actually, quite intellectually curious about Christianity and Catholicism, but that discussion gave me the vague impression that it might be hard to balance intellectual honesty with a devotion to the tradition. I myself don't have a very extensive theological knowledge, though i've almost finished my PhD in philosophy (on Hegel). In this context, the concept of 'modernity' is often bound up with an emphasis on our self-creative capacities. I'm beginning to have strong suspicions that this emphasis is really an overemphasis. So when, somewhere or other, you said something about Grace being required because of the the internal deficiency or contradiction in natural reason (perhaps you didn't quite phrase it this way), that's a view that seems to me very appealing. In any case, there's still a huge distance between recognising something like this and being prepared to commit to all the particular doctrines of Catholicism. But I do plan to go back and read Aquinas when i'm done with this damn PhD.
@@MeisterBeefington Thank you for watching my videos. Taylor Marshall's videos are a major reason I started doing theology videos. I am a fairly traditional, committedly orthodox Catholic Theologian. Watching his videos was disturbing me, because he preys upon people's traditional sentiments in a Pep Rally fashion but often is not presenting certain people's theology accurately, giving false impressions of heterodoxy. I wanted to provide a more nuanced and accurate presentation of these matters.
Congrats on your PhD work! As someone studying Hegel, you may be one of the few people I'd recommend Rahner to. He's what they call a transcendental thomist. Certain parts of his "Foundations of Christian Faith" may have connections to your own studies. Additionally, Ratzinger's book "Theology of History in St. Bonaventure" would be an avenue for exploring the importance of history from a scholastic mindset.
Of course, I do encourage you to read more Aquinas when you have the time! A hallmark of Catholicism is intellectual integrity and the search for truth as paramount. Familiarity with the tradition, in my view, is necessary to help make sound progress in any science, theology included. The danger of certain modern philosophies was the tendency to make each person disconnected and automous, starting over from scratch. That doesn't aid in advancing thought. It usually leads to degradation and makes anyone's thought almost passé as soon as it is finished. Also, consider Ratzinger's "The Nature and Mission of Theology." It's a great and fairly easy read!
First, would the issue of Communio which would have the article you are recommending be available in digital format?
Second, wouldn’t the issue of God not owing us the saving grace of access to His Divine Life be answered in the biblical account that our nature as He created it is fallen. For a greater good (oh happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam that gained for us so great a Redeemer from the Easter Vigil Exultet) He permitted Adam and Eve to lose their supernatural life by their free choice so that, in His foresight, the fallen nature transmitted to us from our first parents is still created for its ultimate fulfillment of eternal life, but totally dependent on His grace of redemption. Our fallen nature is subject to the natural tyranny of its animal instincts and helpless of itself to attain what we were created to be.
Now I can read De Lubac in peace HAHHAHAHA
If I remember correctly, von Balthasar, Danielou, and de Lubac advocated the New Theology. In this article, Fr. David Greenstock argues that Pope Pius XII condemned it.
Thomism and the New Theology (Greenstock).pdf (arizona.edu)
There's a lot of misunderstanding about this topic. The "new theology" is not really a monolithic group or a specific theology, and de Lubac explicitly rejected the claim that his theology was "new." The term is mostly unhelpful, as it is merely an adjective that some people use to label a wide variety of figures. I did an interview on Catholic Culture's channel/podcast that might help. In general, de Lubac and von Balthasar are actually quite conservative and traditional. They were for a ressourcement, not the same camp at all as the nouvelle théologie folks pushing progressive & liberal ideologies.
@@decluesviews2740 Maybe they were conservative. But years ago, after their books convinced me to withdraw from a Master's degree program at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dr. Scott Hahn emailed me to say that he agreed with Greenstock.
Here's another paper about the New Theology.
www.scribd.com/document/353425559/Where-is-the-New-Theology-Leading-Us-Garrigou-Lagrange-Reginald-O-P
@@williammcenaney1331 I have already read Garrigou-Lagrange's essay article as part of a doctoral seminar course on the nouvelle théologie. It's mostly against Bouillard as Dr. Minerd has pointed out in his solo videos and joint video with me on Reason & Theology's channel. Again, though, you're making the mistake of lumping ressourcement theologians under the same umbrella as very different thinkers. I am a fan of both Garrigou-Lagrange and de Lubac and Ratzinger (who was highly influenced by de Lubac). I'm more or less in the camp of Levering with a caveat that I discuss in that joint discussion with Dr. Minerd.
I asked Scott Hahn this very issue: what do you say to those who say the Communio theologians and Thomism are incompatible or even call the former modernists. He gave a very good answer. He basically said Garrigou-Lagrange was his favorite 20th C theologian while Ratzinger was his second, de Lubac he thought was wrong on nature and grace but for all the right reasons (N.B. wrong doesn't mean heretical or modernist, it was a dispute about what proper Thomism is on the question. He advocates for what Levering is doing: ressourcement Thomism. You can see his remarks on Pints with Aquinas's interview with Scott Hahn about his conversion (published about 3 months ago). He answers my question starting around 1:23:45
@@decluesviews2740 You know much more theology than I'll ever know because my computer science and philosophy are my fields. Since you're the expert here, I'm happy to admit that I may be making the mistake you believe I'm making. But it seems to me that if you read or reread Fr. Greenstock's article, the one Dr. Hahn agrees with, it'll tell you that Pope Pius XII wrote about de Lubac in Humani Generis when in that encyclical, he condemned the new theology.
If you read the article below, you'll learn about a bishop who banned Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity because he, the bishop, thought it was too liberal.
www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/04/26/a-tale-of-two-cardinals/
If you wonder about other reasons why Ratzinger's theology troubles me, please read his book "Theological Highlights of Vatican II," where you'll know he believes that convergence with non-Catholics needs to replace their conversion to Catholicism. But, thank God, he says that non-Catholics may still become Catholics when their consciences urge them to do that. From my fallible perspective, de Lubac, von Balthasar, and Ratzinger are at least material modernists.
Why does Ratzinger believe that conversion is an option, though not a requirement for non-Catholics? Maybe that's because of Vatican II's novel distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. I say "novel" because, in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII teaches that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Ch]urch of Christ is not, in my opinion, a property that denominations have, too, when the Catholic Church has it fully. Please see Fr. Ripperger's video "Why Remain Catholic" to know why the "new Church of Christ" includes non-Catholic religions. If everyone is in the Church of Christ distinct from the Catholic Church, why bother evangelizing non-Catholics? Or so religiously indifferent ecumenists would ask. Let me post a link to Fr. Ripperger's video.
th-cam.com/video/aovDj89-D4A/w-d-xo.html
Another point about Ratzinger,. Please tell me why he calls Gaudium et Spes a "counter-syllabus" in his book "Principles of Catholic Theology." to allude Bl. Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. In that document, that pope condemns religious indifferentism and the idea that there's good reason to hope that non-Catholics will go to heaven.
Pope John Paul seems modernist to me, too, when I recall his Assisi meetings. Since Modernists stay agnostic about whether there's anything supernatural, they believe that divine revelation happens inside us. For them, it's a feeling. So I suspect that JPII kissed the Qu'ran, let a pagan try to exorcise him, and allowed other pagan practices because he wanted to respect how the pagans and other people felt. After all, modernists believe, God may be revealing himself to members of any religion.
I'm a staunch Catholic traditionalist who attends only the Traditional Latin Mass when I do go to Mass. And the only kind of ecumenism I support is the ecumenism Pius XII wrote about in 1949, ecumenism meant to help non-Catholics become Catholics.
@@williammcenaney1331 I appreciate your reply, and I apologize in advance for not being able to respond quickly and fully. I have family visiting from out of state this week, plus I have several work projects to do, all while coordinating a move. I've also gotten multiple messages from multiple people asking me questions about things, so my time is limited and my attention severly divided. I appreciate the resources you're sending, but I cannot look at all of them at present. At this moment, I'm rushing, since I have a couple of errands to run before getting my children to a play date with their cousins. But I'll be on a road trip to Texas soon, so I don't know when else I'll be able to respond.
I think the term 'modernist' is thrown around too loosely. Even when people could be called heretics or in error, modernism is not always the accurate category, but it is used so often for people who do not fit the description. In fact, I think hearing people called modernist by others tends to create a distorted lens from which people then approach figures who are completely undeserving of the label.
Modernism is typically exhibited--as you indicated--by agnosticism or a sense that all doctrines are really just an expression of subjective religious experience. I have studied Ratzinger widely and in-depth, and I see no indication of that in him whatsoever. My STL Thesis and Doctoral Dissertation were about him, I've taught course on him, my doctoral 'lectio' dealt with him on the Church and salvation, I've taught a college course on him, and I've published two articles about him, and I'm currently writing a book on his theology. I've never come across anything resembling the remarks you attribute to him about convergence without conversion. I'm not saying it isn't there; I'm saying I have not come across that concept, and I'd have to read the specific chapter in which the phrase takes place to discuss it further.
Likewise, I do not see modernism as such in de Lubac or JP II. In fact, I'd say that all three are very much against modernism, so defined, since they all adhere to the knowability of truth and the absolute truth of Catholic Christianity. Read 'Dominus Iesus' issued by the CDF under Ratzinger and approved by JP II just as an example. Your interpretations of Assisi do not gel with his theology or magisterial texts at all. While Assisi still boggles my mind, I don't think it was due to religious indifferentism. I tend to suspect that JP II, knowing that ours is the only true God, was operating under the hope that the event would open up non-Christians to Christianity more, removing barriers to their investigation into Christianity and thus leading to more conversions. It does seem that there are more Muslim conversions and more conversions in Africa and Asia. I'm not sure if there is a causal correlation or not. And even if I find it problematic, I don't think JP II's motivation was indifferentism.
JP II and Ratzinger are both committed to ecumenism but not as a replacement for evangelization; it's actually meant to aid in the process of evangelization. Ecumenism literally just means having conversations in a peaceable manner with non-Catholic Christians to discuss similarities and disagreements out of mutual respect and a common commitment to search for the truth. It helps expose non-Catholics to Catholicism, and helps us learn more about their perspective so that we can more effectively respond to their actual issues rather than attacking strawmen with which they don't associate themselves. Von Balthasar, by the way, wrote a brilliant short book against false ecumenism, entitled "In the Fullness of Faith: on the Centrality of the Distinctively Catholic." He certainly wasn't an indifferentist, and Ratzinger was one of the most vocal people against indifferentism and relativism.
I've tackled the 'subsistit in' question elsewhere. I may even have a video clip on my channel that deals with it. I find it fascinating when supposedly conservative/traditional Catholics try to argue that 'subsistit' means what liberals or progressives would like it to mean. The source material suggests that the phrase was recommended to the Council by one of the most traditional Fathers, Sebastian Tromp. It indicates a transtemporal perduring through time via a personal mode of existence. The Baltimore Catechism even uses the verb to discuss the Church's continuation throughout time. The Persons of the Trinity are defined by Aquinas as 'subsistent relations.' The CDF (under Ratzinger) even issued a very explicit explanation of the term in Communionis Notio, which outright rejects notions that the Church could be said to 'subsist' in other communities as well. But it is just a fact that 'elements' or 'accidental features' of church are present in other communities, such as baptism, and in the case of the Orthodox, even aposotlic succession. That's just a reality. There's nothing contrary to fact or Catholicism in admitting that. And Vatican II is very clearly not in favor of religious indifferentism.
I remember being shocked by the 'counter-syllabus' comment as well, although I haven't studied it in depth. I'd need to revisit it to give a fuller treatment. Even upon doing so, I still may be willing to admit that I don't like his comments there. Although, I'm also not sure it means what people may think it means. Again, I'd have to study it more in depth. From what I gather/recollect, his point had to do with the fact that the Syllabus was 'one-sided' insofar as it only stated what was to be rejected from modern developments without specifying in what ways or how the Church should engage with the modern world in addition to rejecting those errors. It doesn't mean that those aren't errors. But it does mean that we still have to address how to engage with our times on a practical level: what do we think about democracy and how do we act in countries that are de facto not 'Catholic' countries, etc. How do we engage with the sciences, etc. In that sense, a counter-syllabus is a complementary counter-part to the negative rejection via an explication of what we can or should also do in addition to rejecting the errors. But, again, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'd have to do a complete study to know for sure. I remember liking "Principles" more than "Introduction," but also whincing at that phrasing, so I get the concern.
Just as an aside: I attend the TLM almost every week, with some N.O. here and there. I did a video explaining why I go to the TLM in case you ever want to check that out.
Bunch of modernist anti-Thomist nonsense.
Not even close. It’s comments like your comment that makes it hard to take y’all seriously. You throw around the term modernist where it doesn’t apply as if doing so is an actual argument.
@@decluesviews2740 Nah. You keep pushing de Lubac and his modernist mush. It's part of the "Word on Fire" Vatican II propaganda drive. Advice to others: read Lawrence Feingold on this topic. And remember that Grace perfects Nature, and not everyone winds up in Heaven, no matter what Bp Barron says. And Vatican II was a failed council.
@@SaltyPalamite This just further proves your ignorance. Feingold disagrees with de Lubac on this point, but he doesn’t think he’s a modernist. The debate is about how to properly interpret Thomas. Also, I think you meant grace perfects nature; de Lubac agrees! That’s actually a huge part of his point: nature can’t perfect itself. Feingold actually likes a lot of de Lubac’s other works, too. Also, Bishop Barron doesn’t say everyone goes to heaven. That’s a gross misrepresentation. He’s clarified that so many times. He agrees with von Balthasar that we are all in danger of going to hell and have to take that seriously.
@@decluesviews2740 I edited my comment because I had not had my first cup of coffee. Yes, grace perfects nature. :- ) Re: Bp Barron, even Ralph Martin has called out his quasi-universalism. You seem like a bright guy. Stop dealing with Vatican II theology. It's all horse manure, and appeals to people who are not interested in the analytical precision that Thomism demands.
@@decluesviews2740 And de Lubac was rightfully condemned by Pius XII.
Lubac was a modernist. Period
"De Lubac is a modernist" is a claim that could serve as the conclusion of an argument, but "period" is not a warrant for that claim. I have read tons of de Lubac, and a lot of what popular commentators say about him is false. Tim Gordon himself actually expressed appreciation to me and on Twitter for correcting his mistakes. I am open to being corrected as well, as long as there is good evidence. But as one who studied him on this question for doctoral work, it would take some well-argued and accurately cited texts to convince me of your conclusion. Stating "period" doesn't cut it.
Yes, Mr Tan, plse give us yr rationale? Maybe just 1 and we can hv a conversation.Too many very hard to address in this platform. It is always good to share the Faith in charity....
@@decluesviews2740 i found this very helpful on de Lubac, and I think it seems odd that neo-thomists seem to like Etienne Gilson though he seems closer to de Lubac.
Are you familiar with the Reformed(Calvinistic) view of the donum concreatum as distinct from the neo-thomist donum superadditum? This being that the gift of original righteousness being an accidental, amissible yet constitutive attribute of human identity. The loss of this grace in the Fall, being a real change in man qua man, without destroying his humanity. And consequently redemption is the elevation of human nature to a state of supernatural fulfillment of his nature, this by grace.