Thank you Justin.

welcome

I don't know if you have it, but if you do a search on amazon, there is actually a whole book about this controversy between Rahner and VB.

Do a search for "VB anonymous Christian", it should come up. I don't know if it is any good though.

I have seen that book before and it is on my daunting list, but I haven't purchased it yet because it is rather expensive and I have heard that it isn't much good...

Thanks for the heads up though!

Not sufficient for what? To make an end run around exclusive salvation? Balthasar bemoaned what Rahner had taken to the logical conclusions conclusions of liberalism; he had no leg to stand on so long as he held out the real possiblity that no soul has ever been punished in hell for that idea is based upon egregious error. Balthasar did not want the irrelevancy of Rahner, fair enough. Now Balthsar should have faced his own tendancy to make the Church's doctrine utterly irrelevant; he should have faced the fact that retaining all the conscience soothing discussions of doctrine (which he rightly protested against Rahner) also becomes radically irrelevant if there was no necessity for the intellect to adhere to doctrine in order to attain salvation in the first place.

That's right, Matthew... the quote of a man whom we may as well wonder why he insisted on calling himself "Catholic"--to use this "Catholic's" own sarcasm, which he applied to Hans Kung, as my post below related.

His books are full of nothing but liberal propaganda, and a person rightly wonders how this man, this liberal heritic who road under the mask of 'loving the church', didn't just become a Protestant...

What a joke, Balthasar was, right Matthew.

What a joke...

Popular acclaim is a precarious rule of judgment.

Balthasar himself rejects revelation... it is a matter of revelation, if not formal dogma, that there are persons, including human persons in hell. I think Matthew is pointing out that Balthasar himself was subject to liberal errors.

This whole neo-theology is ridiculous anyways. To "skip 15 centuries" as Fr. Congar put it is to efface Christianity of its historical character... ressourcement, for example, presumes wrongly that the earlier you go, the more understanding there is of the faith, when indeed a 21t century Catholic has more explicit understanding than the apostles! Balthasar has some good writings and he at least attempted to stay within the bounds of orthodoxy, but he fell to error with the rest of 'em

Joshua, Balthasar never "rejected" any "revelation" of "dogmas" that stated there were "persons in hell".

I can appreciate disagreement with Balthasar, but for anybody to make this claim clearly shows that they have never read his work on the subject. Joshua, you don't have to read his work, but be honest when you really have little to offer on the subject.

Many people have been introduced to the subject with a couple NOR discussions in their magazines (both are readily available on the internet, or I can provide you with a copy if you wish). Those who made their polemic critiques in the NOR were fine to disagree with Balthasar, but I assert that the NOR is not a very good "end source" for anybody who wants to be introduced to... ANY subject.

Again, nobody has to read his work, and if they do read it, nobody has to agree with it. That is completely fine, but let's be honest...

Dulles, by the way, wrote an excellent article on this subject that discusses not only Balthasar, but the views of other theologians, including the "anonymous Christian" perspective that Balthasar himself critiqued.

Peace,

Justin

P.S. Joshua, nothing personal. You are a swell chap. Let's just be honest, and disagree, when we do, with fairness and charity. Hope your summer is going well in CA. I can't wait to get back to the West Coast!

Did Balthasar or did he not posit the possibility of an empty hell?

I have not said he contradicted any formal dogma (quite the opposite) but he overturns pious belief and contradicts the prima facie sense of Revelation.

I know he didn't hold to apokatastasis (Maritain is the one who approached that, and even he avoided it formally by just positing a release from pain, not an entry to heaven). But he explicitly holds to the possibility that all men are saved... and that, I say, is contrary to revelation and goes against the implicit conclusions of dogmas, if not any dogma itself. Yes, I know he doesn't say all men are saved, but he says that we do not know if any man is not saved. This is false, we do not know if this particular man is damned, but we know some are... and perhaps we know that Judas is (such is pious belief)

Justin, are you seriously denying that Balthasar posited that hell could be empty?

I took at look at my posts...

Nope, I didn't say or imply that anywhere.

Thanks for the question.

Then you misread my post entirely

"Joshua, Balthasar never "rejected" any "revelation" of "dogmas" that stated there were "persons in hell"."

As I had never said that he rejected "revelation of dogmas" (whatever the heck that means) but rather I said

"it is a matter of revelation, if not formal dogma, that there are persons, including human persons in hell"

Balthasar denies this. If hell could be empty then this statement is false above. He must deny that the proposition "there are human persons in hell" is one of revelation to posit that Hell could be empty

Joshua~

I meant to say "revelation OR dogmas", but I can see how "of" would be confusing.

To clarify, are you saying that by saying that there is a possibility that hell would be empty that he is thereby rejecting "revelation or dogma"?

Justin

Yes, revelation. It is my contention that though it may not formally defined, that the proposition "there are human persons in hell" belongs to revelation and thus is materially sufficient for dogmatic status... that is a pope or council could define it formally.

Such would be "sententia fidei proxima" in the words of Ott...

I base this on previous dogmas (besides what I think are clear statements in the bible) such as that of Valence ("some men are predestined to heaven, others to hell, but these latter only on account of forseen sins"). Or in the bible we have Judas clearly as the son of perdition...

Balthasar liked his way of undermining catholic doctrine better than Rahner's. The latter's "transcendental categories" were too complex and needless for the former.