Last year, the periodical First Things ran a three part series of debates between two Roman Catholic scholars on the topic of whether the late Hans Urs Von Balthasar, the famous modern RCC universalist (beloved by John Paul the Great and his successor Pope Benedict), was in fact teaching heresy. FT subsequently published the discussion, selected correspondences, and the debators’ replies to the correspondences, in a little monograph available in several places including at Amazon. Interested parties may order a copy in print or download it as a digital document from this Amazon link.
I was one of the respondents whom the editors chose to print; but unfortunately they chose to reduce my letter to a single paragraph, the result being that Fr. Oakes (for the defense) seems to have had no idea what my question or concern was. (Note: I receive no compensation from sales of this work, btw.)
The main thrust of the prosecution (Dr. Pitstick) and Fr. Oakes both, was to ask to what degree Balthasar’s teaching comported historically with RCC bishops and popes. My questions and concerns were more technical. At the time I ran them by some RCCs at the Cadre backchannel, but I never got a very clear reply (other than read Balthasar… uh… okay but the people who have read him and are familiar with him ought to be able to answer the questions, ja???)
Consequently, I am here appending the full text of my original letter to FT (addressed both to Dr. Pitstick and Fr. Oakes), to see if anyone more familiar with Balthasar than I am can address my concerns. Since the topic falls into one of two levels of Christology, I’ve chosen to try posting it here, but naturally the moderators may with to move it somewhere more suitable. (Note: while the topic is certainly related to Balthasar’s universalism, my questions aren’t directly related to his theological rationale in favor of universalism, but rather to some preliminary moves on his part.)
•••••••original text follows•••••••
I have been following the recent debate (between Dr.Pitstick and Fr. Oakes), in the pages of FT issues 168 and 169, with some interest. Dr. Pitstick has been arguing the position (consonant with an upcoming book of hers on the topic) that Balthasar’s teaching (or meditiations or whatever it may be most charitably and accurately called) on the descent of Christ into hell, runs against the Roman Catholic doctrine on this topic, as summarized by Dr. Pitstick in her four points. (p26, #168.) Fr. Oakes has so far not seemed to challenge the basic gist of these four points, though naturally he disputes Dr. Pistick’s application of them.
What strikes me as exceedingly odd, however, is that so far there has been little if any attempt (in this debate as it stands, at least) at assessing Balthasar’s stance in light of trinitarian orthodoxy per se. Neither author has given an explication of Balthasar (so far) in terms of distinction-of-Persons-in-unity-of-substance, nor in maintaining the two natures doctrine of the Incarnation. Dr. Pitstick has not challenged Balthasar’s teaching for being Arian, for example. Fr. Oakes has not defended Balthasar’s teaching (insofar as he does make some defense of it) as holding to a hypostatic union of the two natures (human and divine) and of the union in essence of the 1st and 2nd Persons of the Trinity.
Is this not rather curious, though? For normally, I would have supposed that in a charge of heresy, or in a defense from that charge, this would have been the first and key topic. If Balthasar is teaching something (even if by accidental logical corollary) which is not orthodox trinitarian Christianity, then one hardly needs to go further as to whether he is in synch with official doctrine elsewhere. Whereas, on the other hand, if he is teaching orthodox trinitarian Christianity, then a detractor will be challenged to demonstrate him to be heretical in any fashion that doesn’t place the orthodoxy of authoritative Catholic tradition into similar straits.
I ask this, then, in regard to but largely in ignorance of Balthasar’s writing, in hope of being answered by scholars who have certainly demonstrated they know his material:
1.) Does Balthasar teach that the union of two natures, human and divine, each distinctly remaining such, also remained and remains undissolved in Christ, including in death and the descent into hell?
2.) Does Balthasar consistently teach the unity of the essence of the 1st Person of God (i.e. the Father, God self-begetting) with the 2nd Person of God (i.e. the Son, God self-begotten, Incarnated as Christ)?
3.) Does Balthasar consistently teach the omnipresence of the Trinity?
4.) Does Balthasar consistently teach the dependence of all things for their continued existence upon and ultimately upon the continuing action of the Trinity?
If Balthasar denies (1), then he has taught (inadvertently or otherwise) some type of docetism at best. If (2), then at best he has taught cosmological bi-(or-tri?)-theism, not trinitarian monotheism; or even perhaps a type of Arianism. If (3) or (4), then he has taught some kind of cosmological dualism not even restricted to a bi/tri-theism of the recognized Persons of the Trinity.
Relying, as I am, on secondhand expositions of Balthasar’s work, it seems to me that he is being reported so far, by both Dr. Pitstick and Fr. Oakes, as denying (implicitly or explicitly) at least three of these four positions. By teaching the absolute separation of Christ from God, Balthasar has at least introduced a docetic [or perhaps adoptionistic?] schism in the two natures, and possibly even a schism in the substantial unity of the Trinity. By teaching that the denizens of hell continue to exist apart from God, Who is not present in hell, Balthasar has introduced cosmological dualism of some sort (and possibly has also inadvertently taught, as a corollary, that a created entity, namely Satan, has succeeded in becoming an independently existing entity, in which case we also have something even worse than popular Mormon doctrine.)
If Balthasar teaches something other than these positions, that would be good to know for his defense (and fair to recognize in his prosecution). If Balthasar teaches something other than these positions, and yet also teaches these positions, too, that would still be a conclusive case for his prosecution, and ought to be fairly recognized as inconsistency in orthodox doctrine by his defense.
•••••••end original text•••••••
