This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
If you're gonna link to Mounier, you better link to Maritain. In fact, he should be on your list of great theologians, displacing the non-theologian Teilhard
What I like most about these selections from Mounier is how he places the Personhood of God at the center of human community. Especially, the comments on the relationship between technology and mankind, or human culture. To say it serves mankind as habit serves the individual appears to suggest that culture can have its own virtues, or better said create a structire of action that tends towards certain virtues or vices - in the case of a consumerism.
I wonder about the relationship between personalism and ressourcement. Pope John Paul II was influenced by both, but otherwise I just don't know how the two currents inter-related.
Mounier's is the name I associate with Personalism, but upon googling, I found that Personalism preceded him and was a broad and contradictory intellectual movement, one of whom was Jacques Maritain.
I also found this article pertinent: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/weigel.html Luthern theologian Lindbeck responding to Weigel: 'Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson were breaking new ground, too, but they were laymen, and in any case Gilson was an historian, not a philosopher, so he didn't quite "count."' [as a threat to neo-Scholasticism, like la nouveau thelogie]
This quote raises another issue: the alienation of theology from all of life, from other academic disciplines and the trend to open theology back up (once the queen of the sciences!). Many ressourcement thinkers were influenced by the poet , Peguy, or the author, Bernanos. As Albany notes, Chardin was an anthropoligist. Lindbeck notes that Gilson was a historian. Of course, Balthasar earned his first degree in Germanistics (literature, the arts, etc).
So, three trends: 1. return to the sources, 2. personalism (and other anthropological philosophies), and 3. re-engagement of theology with culture.
There is much one can say here. I appreciate everyones comments and questions.
Teilhard de Chardin is Ressourcement. He was a Jesuit priest with multiple doctorate degrees. For example, he was a geologist and paleontologist... During his lifetime he was one of the discoverers of the "Peking Man."
Why did I list him a great thinker? I did this for several reasons. He was close friends with Henri de Lubac. In fact, the Superior General of the Jesuits assigned the chief defense of Teilhard's thought to de Lubac. He defended him in Rome and throughout the world. Several books (many of which were translated into English) authored by de Lubac came as a result of this defense. De Lubac is the "father" (more than anyone else) of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore if de Lubac said Teilhard was orthodox, he is orthodox in my book. If both Luigi Giussani (i.e. Chapter 3 of Why the Church) and David Schindler refer us to Teilhard, this is somebody I'm going to pay attention to.
My next post will quote Dr. David L. Schindler in regards to de Lubac's emphasis on the thought of Balthasar and Teilhard. In future posts I will address the relationship between personalism and ressourcement as well. Together as friends we will educate each other.
According to note 79, http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/411/Footnotes__Ressourcement_Theology__Aggiornamento_and_the_Hermeneutics_of_Tradtion.html, some referred to Teilhard with the disparaging term, "la nouvelle theologie."
Teilhard is another thinker whose popularizers have not helped him. De Lubac corrected Teilhard's thought by connecting his insights with those of the Fathers of the Church. So, although Teilhard did not himself make a "return to the sources," his insights have only benefitted from ressourcement.
In addition to the book on Teilhard, I believe that there's an article on Teilhard in De Lubac's "Theology in History." Have you seen it?
In the Religious Sense, Giussani also refers us to Kerouac, Camus, and some graffiti from May 1968 Paris. I don't think a Giussani reference is an affirmation of doctrinal orthodoxy. Neither is a good word from Henri de Lubac, last time I checked.
Let me state clearly that I not an expert on anyone, i.e. de Lubac, Teilhard, or myself. But it's clear to me in reading de Lubac's books on Teilhard that it's not a "correction," but clarification of his thought. A lot of the criticism of Teilhard's thought came after his death (early 50s) therefore someone who knew him and his thought intimately (and one would hope correctly) was put in charge of his defense. This person was de Lubac.
In regards to the comments from my anonymous friend in Albany NY - thanks for your comments and feedback. No Catholic thinker or writer (canonized saint or not) in the history of the Church has ever been 100% orthodox in everything he has written, thought, or did i.e. Origen, Augustine, etc. I am not saying that Teilhard was either. In reference to Giussani's quote of de Lubac on Teilhard (at least twice in Chapter 3 of Why the Church) I would say this though. Don Giussani was referring to the disposition that one should have in regards to faith and science. Clearly, clearly in these quotes Teilhard had the correct disposition in comparison to other scientists of our age.
If you have a specific problem with either Teilhard's OR de Lubac's thought then lay them out on the table so we can deal with them. Regardless if you agree with de Lubac's thought, you have to recognize the impact he had on the thought of Church Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and therefore its documents. De Lubac's thought also greatly impacted the thought of Karol Wojtyla which can be seen in his writings throughout his pontificate, not to mention, de Lubac being made a cardinal by him.
Christians should not fear correction. Chaucer submitted all he wrote to correction by the Church. The work we all do must undergo correction if it is to last.
Fred's comments make some sense. From what I understand about teilhard he was not writing in dialogue with the sources of Christian spirituality in a manner consistent with the resourcement movement.
I do know that many feared that Teilhard had equated spirituality too much with the natural world. It has written that Dietrich Von Hildebrand clashed heads with Teilhard at Fordham U. over the idea of the supernatural. Dietrich felt that Teilhard had equated the supernatural too much with the natural and in the process almost eliminated the substance of the idea of the supernatural.
I have not read much Teilhard but have read Thomas Berry, a Passionist Priest and follower of Teilhard. His writings equate the natural to the supernatural to such an extent that God is often not mentioned. There appears to be little diference between natural energy and "spiritual energy." Now, in a sacramental worldview there is room for an idea of "spiritual energy" but to nearly equate it with natural energy is dangerously close to pantheism. Here is an article by Berry: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2313
Regarding deLubac, often the clarifications made by geniuses are interpretations that manage to correct grave errors.
Once again let me state that I'm no expert in the thought of Teilhard, but a few remarks are necessary.
1. I'm remain unconvinced that Teilhard was in "grave error" with or without the defense of de Lubac in consideration.
2. The theme of divinisation, which he repeatedly returned to throughout his writings, but especially in the Divine Mileu, is ressourcement. Read the Eastern Church Fathers. This concept is still very present in the theology and spirituality of the East. As an Eastern Catholic, I know this to be true.
3. Outside of reading Teilhard himself, or de Lubac commentary on his thought, I would refer people to the writings of Ursula King.
Michael - I would be curious to find out where you heard or read about Dietrich Von Hildebrand's criticism of Teilhard. I would love to read more about this. I'm a big fan of the Hildebrands (husband and wife).
Fred - I was unaware of this section the Theology of History by de Lubac. I do not have this work of his nor of Balthasar's, but I desire to acquire both of them.
Hildebrand's critique of Teilhard is found in an appendix to The Trojan Horse in the City of God. I really don't think that divinization and "Christogenesis" are the same thing, though. But I am completely uninformed about all this.
Theology IN History - It's a collection of essays and longer writings spanning many years of de Lubac's career. See my review on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A18XOIQVDPWZ0M/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-8180261-3428604?%5Fencoding=UTF8
17 comments:
If you're gonna link to Mounier, you better link to Maritain. In fact, he should be on your list of great theologians, displacing the non-theologian Teilhard
--From Albany NY
Albany, who is this? Is Maritain Resourcement?
What I like most about these selections from Mounier is how he places the Personhood of God at the center of human community. Especially, the comments on the relationship between technology and mankind, or human culture. To say it serves mankind as habit serves the individual appears to suggest that culture can have its own virtues, or better said create a structire of action that tends towards certain virtues or vices - in the case of a consumerism.
Michael,
Albany raises some interesting questions.
I wonder about the relationship between personalism and ressourcement. Pope John Paul II was influenced by both, but otherwise I just don't know how the two currents inter-related.
Mounier's is the name I associate with Personalism, but upon googling, I found that Personalism preceded him and was a broad and contradictory intellectual movement, one of whom was Jacques Maritain.
I also found this article pertinent:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/weigel.html
Luthern theologian Lindbeck responding to Weigel:
'Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson were breaking new ground, too, but they were laymen, and in any case Gilson was an historian, not a philosopher, so he didn't quite "count."' [as a threat to neo-Scholasticism, like la nouveau thelogie]
This quote raises another issue: the alienation of theology from all of life, from other academic disciplines and the trend to open theology back up (once the queen of the sciences!). Many ressourcement thinkers were influenced by the poet , Peguy, or the author, Bernanos. As Albany notes, Chardin was an anthropoligist. Lindbeck notes that Gilson was a historian. Of course, Balthasar earned his first degree in Germanistics (literature, the arts, etc).
So, three trends: 1. return to the sources, 2. personalism (and other anthropological philosophies), and 3. re-engagement of theology with culture.
Fred
This isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know: is Teilhard ressourcement?
Christ is Risen!
There is much one can say here. I appreciate everyones comments and questions.
Teilhard de Chardin is Ressourcement. He was a Jesuit priest with multiple doctorate degrees. For example, he was a geologist and paleontologist... During his lifetime he was one of the discoverers of the "Peking Man."
Why did I list him a great thinker? I did this for several reasons. He was close friends with Henri de Lubac. In fact, the Superior General of the Jesuits assigned the chief defense of Teilhard's thought to de Lubac. He defended him in Rome and throughout the world. Several books (many of which were translated into English) authored by de Lubac came as a result of this defense. De Lubac is the "father" (more than anyone else) of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore if de Lubac said Teilhard was orthodox, he is orthodox in my book.
If both Luigi Giussani (i.e. Chapter 3 of Why the Church) and David Schindler refer us to Teilhard, this is somebody I'm going to pay attention to.
My next post will quote Dr. David L. Schindler in regards to de Lubac's emphasis on the thought of Balthasar and Teilhard. In future posts I will address the relationship between personalism and ressourcement as well. Together as friends we will educate each other.
According to note 79,
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/411/Footnotes__Ressourcement_Theology__Aggiornamento_and_the_Hermeneutics_of_Tradtion.html,
some referred to Teilhard with the disparaging term, "la nouvelle theologie."
Teilhard is another thinker whose popularizers have not helped him. De Lubac corrected Teilhard's thought by connecting his insights with those of the Fathers of the Church. So, although Teilhard did not himself make a "return to the sources," his insights have only benefitted from ressourcement.
In addition to the book on Teilhard, I believe that there's an article on Teilhard in De Lubac's "Theology in History." Have you seen it?
David,
In the Religious Sense, Giussani also refers us to Kerouac, Camus, and some graffiti from May 1968 Paris. I don't think a Giussani reference is an affirmation of doctrinal orthodoxy. Neither is a good word from Henri de Lubac, last time I checked.
I like Fred's three points.
--From Albany NY
Let me state clearly that I not an expert on anyone, i.e. de Lubac, Teilhard, or myself. But it's clear to me in reading de Lubac's books on Teilhard that it's not a "correction," but clarification of his thought. A lot of the criticism of Teilhard's thought came after his death (early 50s) therefore someone who knew him and his thought intimately (and one would hope correctly) was put in charge of his defense. This person was de Lubac.
In regards to the comments from my anonymous friend in Albany NY - thanks for your comments and feedback. No Catholic thinker or writer (canonized saint or not) in the history of the Church has ever been 100% orthodox in everything he has written, thought, or did i.e. Origen, Augustine, etc. I am not saying that Teilhard was either. In reference to Giussani's quote of de Lubac on Teilhard (at least twice in Chapter 3 of Why the Church) I would say this though. Don Giussani was referring to the disposition that one should have in regards to faith and science. Clearly, clearly in these quotes Teilhard had the correct disposition in comparison to other scientists of our age.
If you have a specific problem with either Teilhard's OR de Lubac's thought then lay them out on the table so we can deal with them. Regardless if you agree with de Lubac's thought, you have to recognize the impact he had on the thought of Church Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and therefore its documents. De Lubac's thought also greatly impacted the thought of Karol Wojtyla which can be seen in his writings throughout his pontificate, not to mention, de Lubac being made a cardinal by him.
I also thank Fred for his very important input as always!
Christians should not fear correction. Chaucer submitted all he wrote to correction by the Church. The work we all do must undergo correction if it is to last.
Fred's comments make some sense. From what I understand about teilhard he was not writing in dialogue with the sources of Christian spirituality in a manner consistent with the resourcement movement.
I do know that many feared that Teilhard had equated spirituality too much with the natural world. It has written that Dietrich Von Hildebrand clashed heads with Teilhard at Fordham U. over the idea of the supernatural. Dietrich felt that Teilhard had equated the supernatural too much with the natural and in the process almost eliminated the substance of the idea of the supernatural.
I have not read much Teilhard but have read Thomas Berry, a Passionist Priest and follower of Teilhard. His writings equate the natural to the supernatural to such an extent that God is often not mentioned. There appears to be little diference between natural energy and "spiritual energy." Now, in a sacramental worldview there is room for an idea of "spiritual energy" but to nearly equate it with natural energy is dangerously close to pantheism. Here is an article by Berry: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2313
Regarding deLubac, often the clarifications made by geniuses are interpretations that manage to correct grave errors.
Once again let me state that I'm no expert in the thought of Teilhard, but a few remarks are necessary.
1. I'm remain unconvinced that Teilhard was in "grave error" with or without the defense of de Lubac in consideration.
2. The theme of divinisation, which he repeatedly returned to throughout his writings, but especially in the Divine Mileu, is ressourcement. Read the Eastern Church Fathers. This concept is still very present in the theology and spirituality of the East. As an Eastern Catholic, I know this to be true.
3. Outside of reading Teilhard himself, or de Lubac commentary on his thought, I would refer people to the writings of Ursula King.
Michael - I would be curious to find out where you heard or read about Dietrich Von Hildebrand's criticism of Teilhard. I would love to read more about this. I'm a big fan of the Hildebrands (husband and wife).
Fred - I was unaware of this section the Theology of History by de Lubac. I do not have this work of his nor of Balthasar's, but I desire to acquire both of them.
Hildebrand's critique of Teilhard is found in an appendix to The Trojan Horse in the City of God. I really don't think that divinization and "Christogenesis" are the same thing, though. But I am completely uninformed about all this.
Theology IN History - It's a collection of essays and longer writings spanning many years of de Lubac's career. See my review on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A18XOIQVDPWZ0M/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-8180261-3428604?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Santi & Fred - thank you.
My friend from Albany NY - refer to my posts on Maritain.
thank you for the link!
Post a Comment