The World Needs Christ

Not more academese, and "Modernity" is an invention of the elites, not out of whole cloth but close. Would the pioneers of "modernity" fall somewhere on the spectrum? Where would they fall on the social hierarchy?

Church Life: Renewing Nouvelle Théologie by Cyril O’Regan

Forgetfulness of God is a serious problem - without memory of God we cannot bless Him and thank Him for His manifold benefits. Is this forgetfulness, then, just an intellectual mistake, or is it one caused by sin? If the Latin churches had not first been internally weakened, and then lost to the modern nation-state, would there be a spiritual vacuum to be filled by some ideology? So what Latins have to offer the world in bringing Christ to it, after 50 years of a disastrous liturgical reform?

"And if there is a simple lesson to be drawn from the sprawling work of both de Lubac and Balthasar it may well be that misrememberers are far more dangerous to Christianity because in some lights they look just like it."

We are not talking about heresies but philosophical errors that do not fulfill man's heart, but feed upon sin and vice. what normal person claims to be a Hegelian or Nietzschean? Academics may pretend; there are those on the new right who claim to be followers of other philosophers, but they have rejected Christianity because of its perceived errors in its moral code.



Ressourcement Futures

Humani Generis and la Nouvelle Théologie,

HPR: Looking Back at “Humani Generis” BY FR. BRIAN VAN HOVE, SJ

See also Joseph Komonchak, Humani generis and “la ‘nouvelle théologie'”

Ressourcement

While in the past I may have been wary of the nouvelle théologie to one degree or another, their attempt to re-engage with the Church Fathers was praiseworth in intent, if not in execution. In the last year I've gradually drifted away from "Thomism of Strict Observance," not that I ever really considered myself a member of that school of Thomistic theology, though I was willing to read its texts. Having had a chance to delve into the Church Fathers more in the last year, it may be time for me to re-evaluate nouvelle théologie the 20th century Ressourcement movement and its members. (I have been a fan of Fr. Bouyer for quite some time, so I am thinking more of the Jesuits.)

Ressourcement theology, aggiornamento, and the hermeneutics of tradition by Marcellino D'Ambrosio

“Ressourcement,” “Aggiornamento,” and Vatican II in Ecumenical Perspective by Eduardo Echeverria

Related:
A Theologian for Our Times – Rediscovering Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange

I didn't know the Salve Regina website is associated with the FSSP, though I had been aware of the website's existence not too long after it was created. "It figures."

Saint Jean Daniélou?

My Homosexual Brother by Sandro Magister

As his spiritual diary reveals, Cardinal Jean Daniélou took upon himself the sins of his beloved brother Alain, so that his soul might be saved. The life lesson of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century

Sign and Source of the Church: Mary in the Theology of the Ressourcement

Pertinacious Papist: William L. Portier on the nouvelles and neo-scholasticism

Some ideas for conferences and such... not that I would have the resources or standing or credentials to put one on my own, but maybe it is possible to find some sponsors for something less than academic. (Or more than academic, depending on your perspective and the ultimate end of such gatherings.) While the 20th century disputants may have passed on, what about revisiting the debate between the neo-scholastics (neo-Thomists) and the new theologians? Are there any today who would acknowledge being the successors to neo-Thomism? Or would they, like many Dominicans, see themselves as restoring or reviving a Thomism? How is each school to be distinguished from the other?


For the needs of "modern man," how are we to explain God and His saving work? Render scripture more intelligible? Understand God better?

Related:
"Uniting Faith and Culture: Hans Urs von Balthasar" by J. Peter Pham (via Insight Scoop)

Revue Thomiste - books

Présentation de la Revue Thomiste (le fr Serge Thomas Bonino)


Aquinas on the Spirit's Gift of Understanding and Dionysius Mystical Theology by Bernard Blackenhorn

Gilles Emery: "The Thomistic Doctrine of God and Dominican Spiritual Life"

Christopher Smith on Traditionalism

His original essay, at Chant Cafe (posted at NLM): Sacra Liturgia 2013 and the Transformation of Traditionalism

And the follow-up (also posted at NLM): Has Traditionalism Really Been Transformed

But now there are many people, who are perhaps a bit more open to certain insights outside of the pre-conciliar manualist theological tradition, such as those of Ratzinger, who now find themselves engaging the same critiques of the traditionalists, but from within the desire of a hermeneutic of continuity. Such a school of tradition is no mere reincarnation of Ultramontanism in its neoconservative Amerophilic form. It is embued with the classical liturgical movement, with an eye to the Patristic age, the East, as well as certain insights of the nouvelle théologie. One thinks of a Ratzinger scholar like Tracey Rowland as perhaps more of an example of this type of thought.

They may be more willing to renew sacramental theology; for example, in light of current discussions and decisions on the Liturgy of Addai and Mari. But would they re-evaluate the magisterial standing of certain council documents and of the councils themselves?

Michael Miller's Review of The Second Vatican Council - An Unwritten Story

CWR (via Pertinacious Papist)

I have yet to make my way through the book, though I have read certain sections (e.g. the one dealing with liturgical reform). At this point in time, I can't say that I would accept this traditionalist account uncritically, however much I might sympathize with the "conservative" Council Fathers, as an ultramontane ecclesiology is ntegral to such a traditionalist  narrative.

Would it be possible to translate some of the doctrines put forward by members of the nouvelle theologie in the language of neo-scholasticism or neo-thomism (for example, regarding ecclesiology). Are we dealing primarily with the understanding of fundamental theological data, rather than conclusions from that data? (Let's set aside disputes about theological method, revelation, metaphysics, the relationship between theology and logic or the Thomistic understanding of the sciences. Of course, it might be said that these are precisely the bones of contention, that the differences in theology are more than a mere difference in writing styles.)

Did neo-Thomism fail because it wasn't Thomistic enough? It did not lead to a Thomistic ressourcement, a re-examination of the sources, with attention paid to the Church Fathers?  Or was the sole problem that it was not accompanied by the necessary sort of intellectual preparation (a proper education in logic and understanding of the sciences). I do think that the neo-Thomism of the manuals was inadequate for ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox, but this was not the aim of the manuals. Nonetheless, would neo-Thomist theologians have been equipped for this job?

I note that Fr. P. Brannan, S.J., is one of the translators of de Mattei's book.

Loreto Publications

Related:
Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P, La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?

William Murphy, "Thomism and the Nouvelle Théologie: A Dialogue Renewed?" (pdf)

Rome Reports: A tribute to Jean Daniélou: A French Cardinal, Theologian from Vatican II

Stumbled across this at Amazon: Nouvelle Thologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II [Paperback] by Jurgen Mettepenningen

From last month: Jürgen Mettepenningen resigns from position with Archbishop Leonard

Ressourcement Theology, Aggiornamento,and the Hermeneutics of Tradition by Marcellino D'Ambrosio

DETERMINING THE CONTENT AND DEGREE OF AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHINGS
John R. T. Lamont

B) Problems with the Neo-Scholastic Approach to Doctrine, and Their Remedy

The ideas about the interpretation of Church teachings that have been criticized so far emerge from "progressive" theological currents that have become widely accepted only since the 1950s. Immediately before this period, the predominant approach to the interpretation of Church teachings was that of neo-Scholastic theologians, itself a development of the views of baroque Scholastics. Although this approach is still the one generally used by theologians who reject the heterodoxy of the progressive notions, resorting to the neo-Scholastic approach is not a satisfactory method for evaluating certain conciliar teachings, such as that on religious liberty. While this approach is not heterodox, it nonetheless has serious shortcomings. Remedying them requires some constructive work on the issue of the interpretation of Church teachings.

One class of shortcomings arises from its dependence on a mistaken theory of revelation, which I have dubbed the "magis-terial" theory of revelation, and criticized elsewhere.(41) This theory underlies the neo-Scholastic system of theological notes, which divides teachings into the categories of de fide divina, de fide divina et catholica, de fide catholica, de fide in genere, theologice certa, doctrina catholica, and proxima fidei. The falsity of the magisterial theory and of the theories of the development of doctrine that are associated with it means that these classifications are mistaken or inadequate.(42) However, since most of these notes are intended to be applied to teachings that are infallibly taught, we need not go into their shortcomings in detail. The feature of the neo-Scholastic system that does concern us closely is its general approach to Church teachings, which conceives of assent to these teachings as primarily obedience to a command.

Uniting Faith and Culture: Hans Urs von BalthasarJohn-Peter Pham (from Modern Age 42:2, Spring 2000)

There are a number of reasons why it could be said, albeit from different perspectives, that the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988) occupies a unique place among the great thinkers of the twentieth century. From the point of view of sheer literary volume, he is almost alone in the sheer monumental proportions of his written corpus. . . .

Michael Liccione on the nature/grace question: Backward Christian soldiers

Cosmos Liturgy Sex: Not to Beat a Dead Theologian, But…

Fr. Guy Mansini on 5 theses of Henri De Lubac, S.J.

Thesis One: Attention to the order of pure nature, which began in the 16th century, has had a malign impact on the Church both speculatively and practically. This is so because of the way that the doctrine of pure nature has developed historically. Either a) nature was conceived of in such a way that it needed grace (as with the theologian Baius) or b) it was supernaturalized. This latter way of thinking about pure nature postulated a natural intuition of God or a natural friendship with God. This latter position is the cause of “extrinsicist” accounts of grace, for which it is thought that human nature can have perfect contentment in its own order.

Thesis Two: God has never ordained for man anything more than a supernatural end. There is an intrinsic unity to the economy of salvation, and modern theology was not always sufficiently attentive to this fact.

Thesis Three: Human nature is what it is because it is ordered to a supernatural end, and would not be what it is if it were otherwise ordered.

Thesis Four: The fourth thesis, as Mansini presents it, is complex. It is a thesis in three parts. First, the natural desire to see God must be foremost in our attention in speculative theology, otherwise we do not recognize the unity of the economy of salvation, and we get mixed up on the relationship between philosophical anthropology and theological anthropology, between knowledge and faith, and between philosophy and theology. Second, the natural desire to see God is both sign and effect of our being ordered to possession of beatific vision. Third, because the human “natural desire to see God” is inherently of the supernatural order, it must be understood to be a necessary and absolute ordination and not conditioned – yet, we must not deny that grace is truly gratuitous.

Thesis 5: There follows from theses 1-3 a prohibition: it is useless to consider in the speculative order the condition of our nature aside from its supernatural ordination.

“Henri de Lubac, the Natural Desire to See God, and Pure Nature” from the 2002 Gregorianum (vol. 83, 1): 89-109.

See also these other posts at the same blog:
Nova et Vetera Contra Henri De Lubac
An Essential Difference Between Thomism and Augustinianism

A key to understanding the nature and grace debate?

Is God obligated to give us the opportunity to experience the beatific vision, not because He owes it to us, but because He owes it to Himself, out of love of Himself? Clearly, God is not obligated to create, and He does so freely. Creation does not increase His happiness. Giving intellectual creatures the beatific vision, as opposed to leading them to a natural end, would not increase His happiness either. If He creates, is he free to choose between giving creatures a supernatural end or a natural end? If not, what is the reason? What would determine Him to giving creatures a supernatural end, other than Himself and His will? What would the reason be for such a determination? How would willing His own good require Him to endow creatures with a supernatural end? By giving creatures a supernatural end, God gives of Himself more--there is a 'greater diffusion' of the good, but this does not increase His happiness, so it is not necessary in that respect.

Something to ponder more.

As for the natural desire of man to see God in relation to the 'pure nature' controversy between de Lubac and the neo-scholastics, I will have to study that more in detail.

Edit:
Does Milbank get de Lubac right? The Suspended Middle: Henri de Lubac and the Debate concerning the Supernatural

Henri de Lubac on a supernatural anthropology

Rudolf Voderholzer, "The Cardinal"

on Henri de Lubac