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.
I think Justin is very fair to critique Milbank's work as not thoroughly Catholic and not thoroughly Ressourcement. Milbank holds de Lubac in very high regard, terming de Lubac and Bulgakov as two of the greatest theologians in the 20th century.
I do not think there is a hidden agenda in Milbank's work with regard to pitting de Lubac against the magisterium, with regards to the typical Protestant predilection of doing this. Instead, I think the reading that Milbank will always give is to read the theologian against modernity. In this case, he is reading de Lubac against secular reason on one hand, with its separation of faith and reason and the natural and supernatural. This is why he discusses to great length the "non-ontology" of de Lubac's most radical work. At the same time, he reads de Lubac against Pius XII with regards to the Pope following another strand of modernism that moved the Church away from the direction the Ressourcement theologians thought it should go.
I am shocked that this would be such a controversial reading. I thought that this would be in line with what de Lubac and others weere hoping to achieve in their own public writings and witness.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this. I am fairly familiar with Milbank, but I have just begun to read de Lubac.
1 comment:
I think Justin is very fair to critique Milbank's work as not thoroughly Catholic and not thoroughly Ressourcement. Milbank holds de Lubac in very high regard, terming de Lubac and Bulgakov as two of the greatest theologians in the 20th century.
I do not think there is a hidden agenda in Milbank's work with regard to pitting de Lubac against the magisterium, with regards to the typical Protestant predilection of doing this. Instead, I think the reading that Milbank will always give is to read the theologian against modernity. In this case, he is reading de Lubac against secular reason on one hand, with its separation of faith and reason and the natural and supernatural. This is why he discusses to great length the "non-ontology" of de Lubac's most radical work. At the same time, he reads de Lubac against Pius XII with regards to the Pope following another strand of modernism that moved the Church away from the direction the Ressourcement theologians thought it should go.
I am shocked that this would be such a controversial reading. I thought that this would be in line with what de Lubac and others weere hoping to achieve in their own public writings and witness.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this. I am fairly familiar with Milbank, but I have just begun to read de Lubac.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
Post a Comment