Still Running Off at the Keyboard

VON BALTHASAR'S THEOLOGY

from an article linked below in a comments box, contains this curious statement:

"Only very much later on," he writes, "after the determination of my vocation was behind me and I had completed my philosophical studies at Pullach (under the influence of Erich Przywara) and my four years of theology at Lyon (inspired to do so by Henri de Lubac) with my fellow students Danielou, Varillon, Bouillard, and many others, did I come to realize just how great an aid, to the conception of my theology, was to become my knowledge of Goethe, Holderlin, Nietzche, Hofmannsthal, and especially the Fathers of the Church, to whom I was directed by de Lubac."

"The fundamental assumption of my work Gloria, was the ability to see a "Gestalt" (a complex form) in its coherent totality. Goethe's viewpoint was to be applied to the Jesus phenomena (sic!) and to the convergence of New Testament theologies" (Il nostro compito ? Our Task - Jaca Book, p.29).

Anyone who has read Steiner will know how heavily he relied upon Goethe for his ideas. Goethe is central to Anthroposophy. I wouldn't think Goethe had much to say to a Catholic.

Anyway, the stuff on von Speyer:

Immediately following her con­version (Adrienne's), rumors and tales of miracles began to spread about miracles, which obviously occurred during conversations, dis­cussions and visits at her home. People whispered about (celestial) visions with which she seemed to be favored. As popular reports had it, "she had long and regular meetings with her spiritual director (von Bal­thasar)" (ibid.).

In order to publish Adrienne's mystical written works, von Bal­thasar founded a journal known as Johannes, then, together with Adri­enne, he set up "Johannes," a secu­lar institute. Following this, and still for Adrienne's sake, since his supe­riors evidently did not see clearly through Adrienne von Speyr's "mys­ticism," von Balthasar, on the very eve of his solemn profession, quit the Company of Jesus, choosing instead "direct obedience" to God.

From that moment on, von Balthasar worked in Adrienne's shadow, living in her husband's house, as he busied himself with literature, esthetic theology as well as with her (Adrienne's) "mystical" dictations, until 1960 Neo?modern­ist general mobilization in "feverish" preparations for Vatican II: "Radio, TV: there was just no end to the hustle and bustle as well as to the urgent requests for my writings!" (ibid.p.59)

He certainly seems to claim her visions and his writings are inseparably comingled:

"This is not the place"? we read on p.51-"to submit Adrienne's cha­rismata to a critical and detailed theological examination."

Indeed, on the contrary, it would rather have been both the ideal time and place to do so, since von Bal­thasar himself declares: "Her work and mine are not at all separable: neither psychologically nor philo­logically. For they constitute both halves of a whole which has as its center a unique foundation" (p.60, quoted by Rechenschaft). And he begins Il nostro compito (Our Task) by writing, "The main goal of this book is simply to prevent any attempt of separating my work from that of Adrienne von Speyr, after my death" (p.130).

Also, leaving aside the strange side of her "charismata," such as (a) the "stigmata" which she is sup­posed to have received while still Protestant, (b) the "possibility afforded to her confessor (von Bal­thasar) in being able to "transfer Adrienne back" to each one of her different life periods in order to record her biography," (c) her vir­ginity recovered, according to her, after two marriages, etc...

It is quite sufficient for us, as it should have been for von Balthasar, to apply the fundamental criteria in order to judge any so?called "rev­elation" in the Church: "Any revelations opposed to dogma or mor­als must be held to be absolutely false. With God, contradiction is impossible" Antonio Rojo Marin, O.P., Teologia della perfezione cristiana (Theology of Christian Perfection, p.1077).

"One of her different life periods" ? ? ? ? ? If she was an Anthroposophist, that statement would make very good sense. But supposedly she was a Catholic, in which case it makes no sense at all.

Von Balthasar is very much aware of the fact that the "mystical theology" of his visionary friend can in no way at all conform to Catholic doctrine. "In Adrienne's global theological works," he writes, "are to be found certain passages which, out of context, could some­times seem to be quite strange"­ - and which remain thus even in their context (Il nostro compito, p.14).

Then, in the preface, he clearly admits that Adrienne's works are "at the outset, astounding and maybe even disconcerting or bewildering for some readers" (ibid.p.9). Yet, all of this was not sufficient to raise doubts in von Balthasar's mind re­garding Adrienne's charismata, on the contrary... his doubts were now directed towards Catholic doctrine! "Things," he wrote, "are often such that today's theology is not (or is not yet) able to grasp or to comprehend what is indicated in Adrienne's vi­sions or in her dictations" (ibid.p.16).

Antinomianism? Uh-huh. Well, it usually goes with signs and wonders, so why be surprised.

Going more deeply into the matter, the review Communio ad­mits that today Urs von Balthasar stands exalted in his role of "theolo­gian of beauty" and "is simulta­neously criticized for his impen­etrable and complicated style" (May-June, 1989, p.83)

Same thing people say about the theology of John Paul II. Interesting. He was a student of von Balthasar.

he preaches an ecumenism as wide ranging as possible which embraces even pagan and idolatrous religions while criticizing the post?conciliar Catholic's "tendency to liquidate" the Church.

JPII shared such an ecumenism with him, one that would embrace even idolatrous religions, as the first Assisi event demonstrated.

Whereas, in fact, Aristotelian logic is founded upon the principle of identity and non?contradiction, according to which opposites ex­clude one another, Hegelian logic is based exactly on this contrary prin­ciple: opposites not only do not exclude one another, but they con­stitute the very soul of reality, being necessary although abstract mo­ments of reality. It is a synthesis of opposites wherein the said opposites (affirmation and negation; "thesis" and "antithesis") will break through their limi­tations and find their true reality.

No wonder ecumenism went crazy. We can believe in God and Satanism too according to von Balthasar. Could such a theology be stretched to accommodate the idea that "sinless" priests abused the laity's offspring? In other words that somehow this abuse that took place left the priest sinless and blameless nevertheless? If it could, it would go a long way toward explaining why the Vatican was silent when the crisis broke and has yet to adequately address the crisis.

Only out of Hegel's "philosophi­cal delirium," could the present-day ecumenical delirium be born. The truth is that with the above-men­tioned key in hand, it is now pos­sible to discern and comprehend all of von Balthasar's enigmas as well as today's brand of ecumenism of which he is the "master" and "au­thor."

Bishop William Swing, call your office.

the Ecumenical Super-Church, the "catholic" synthesis of all the world's religions wherein only the contra­dictions and oppositions will become obsolete and disappear.

YIKES! A Catholic URI.

How is the Papacy to be integrated into the Universal Church?," von Bal­thasar suggests precisely the man­ner in which to integrate "this ele­ment, which seems a burden and a nuisance, into the Catholic whole," which is most clearly and un-mis­takenly not the Holy Catholic Church.

They're talking about doing it...about changing the papacy to make it acceptable to the Orthodox...and to other faiths?

This is the method that he sug­gests: the Church must no longer be only of Peter, but also of Paul, of Mary and of John (ibid. p.447). And thus does the primacy of jurisdic­tion, (dogmatically) defined by Vati­can I, disappear behind some vague primacy of charity invented by von Balthasar (and by his "separated brethren"), and in favor of which John?Paul II has, for many years now, been traveling all over the world and explaining to journalists that he has not only received Peter's charisma, but also that of Paul!

Where is this "Church of Mary and of Paul and of John" going to come from? Where is the theology going to come from? Johannite Christianity? Signs and wonders? Visionary theology? In other words Rosicrucianism? So I haven't been imagining things after all!