By Dale Vree
In First Things (April 2006, pp. 67-68), Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote about "Challenging a Giant," the title of his piece. The giant is Hans Urs von Balthasar. Alyssa Pitstick challenged this alleged giant. At the Angelicum in Rome, Pitstick wrote a doctoral dissertation on Balthasar, which focused on Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday.
Fr. Neuhaus said that by reading Balthasar one is "surrendering oneself to…beauty." Balthasar is probably the pre-eminent theologian of beauty. Of course, Hell is not beautiful, and so Balthasar does his best to expunge Hell.
According to Neuhaus, "Pitstick contends this 'theological opinion' of Balthasar's entails grave departures from orthodox teaching," namely, that Christ suffered in Hell the fate of all unredeemed mankind, so they won't have to go to Hell. According to Neuhaus, Pitstick notes that Balthasar "misrepresents scriptural, patristic, and magisterial texts and simply ignores aspects of the tradition inconvenient to his argument…. She finally convinced me that, on the descent into hell and some other signature themes of the great man, there are, at least implicitly, possible incompatibilities with the received structure of faith…. Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history of Christian thought."
In First Things (June/July 2000, p. 99), Fr. Neuhaus expressed dismay that the NOR would contest Balthasar on the issue of Hell. Neuhaus said, "I don't know what NOR is up to by attacking Balthasar." Well, now he knows.
In First Things (Dec. 2006) there is an article by Alyssa Pitstick and a counterpoint by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., who teaches at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., and who wrote many works on Balthasar and is a defender of Balthasar. (Alyssa Pitstick's dissertation will be published in book form by Eerdmans in 2007.)
Pitstick's book is about Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday. As we said in our New Oxford Note "How Lovely!" (Nov. 2006), in Balthasar's Theo-Drama (Ignatius Press) he said: "Hell would be what is finally condemned by God; what is left in it is sin, which has been separated from the sinner by the work of the Cross" (italics added). In other words, universal salvation -- no repentance needed.
Pitstick says in her First Things article: "What then are we to think when Balthasar himself radically reinterprets a perennial doctrine of his ecclesial community, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell? When he retains the form in its general expression but changes the content to the point of contradicting the original?… It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption…. It has consistently been held as an authentic and authoritative doctrine of Catholic faith. To doubt that would be to doubt not only the testimony of history but also the authority of the tradition itself and of the Church's ordinary Magisterium."
According to Pitstick, Balthasar says that Christ's suffering in Hell "must embrace all time if it is to atone for the sins of all time." Pitstick says that Balthasar "stands in opposition to the faith."
Edward T. Oakes, S.J., defends Balthasar, and in essence Oakes defends universal salvation. For all intents and purposes, Oakes admits that Pitstick is right -- which Oakes should not want to do. As Pitstick says: "It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption." Oakes says that Pitstick "disapproves of Protestant influence on Catholic theologians…. I will up the Protestant ante even further. In my reading, the strongest Protestant influence on Balthasar was not Luther or Calvin but Karl Barth…." Oakes quotes Barth: "we actually know of only one certain triumph of hell -- the handing-over of Jesus -- and that this triumph of hell took place in order that it would never again be able to triumph over anyone." Barth is known to favor universal salvation.
Oakes quotes 1 Timothy 2:4, that God "desires all men to be saved." Of course God, and all Christians, "desire" that all men be saved. But men have free will. Not surprisingly, Oakes leaves out the rest of the text: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).
Oakes quotes God as saying: "all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). This is where Jesus says: "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:23). Yes, all things are possible with God, but this is no guarantee. In Matthew 19:29 Jesus says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters…for My name's sake, shall…inherit everlasting life."
Then Oakes appeals to 1 John 2:1-2: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you do not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just One. He is the expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Again Oakes leaves much out. In 1 John 1:7,9: "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (italics added). And 1 John 2:23-25: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either…. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us -- eternal life."
There was another exchange between Pitstick and Oakes in the January 2007 First Things. On the issue of universal salvation Oakes makes an about-face: "Personally, I would never assert an empty hell…. So how then do I reconcile that position with my enthusiasm for Balthasar? By citing the French anthropologist René Girard's recent book…. Girard speaks retrospectively of his work in a way that uncannily mimics Balthasar's voice: 'We have no choice but to go back and forth, from alpha to omega. And these constant back-and-forth movements force us to phrase matters in a convoluted, spiraling fashion, which eventually runs the risk of being unsettling and even incomprehensible for the reader… [Oakes omission]. I think one needs to read [my work (Oakes comment)] like a thriller. All the elements are given at the beginning, but it is necessary to read to the very end for the meaning to become completely apparent.'" Who knows what this means? Incomprehensible indeed!
Fr. Neuhaus is right: "Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history
of the Christian thought."[Dale Vree is editor the New Oxford Review. His essay, "Surrendering Oneself to Beauty," was originally published as a New Oxford Note in the New Oxford Review (February 2007), pp. 11-14, and is reprinted here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, U.S.A.]
Can you handle the truth? Subscribe now: New Oxford Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment