dilemmas.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : von Balthasar Seminar : One Thread

Page 213. What does he mean by "The intrinsic nexus which exists between the Word of Revelation and it's ecclesially binding expression." ? If you have time Philip could you translate '36' (B.O.P.)

Pg.214( middle of page). "The body is subordinate to it's head, & to the Magisterium only in so far as such subordination gives concrete expression to the Lord's obedience in love."

If a christian believes that the Magisterium is stifling the life in the body rather than serving it, should that christian just live in this imperfect body in obedience to love. Or, confront the Magisterium for the sake of love?. Was this not Martin Luther's dilemma. Was he right to confront the Magisterium?

Pg.217.. "The only enthusiasm to be taken seriously is filled with that God who is no other than he who loved the world so much he preferred it to his only son"

is this a wrong translation?. It is hard to accept that he wrote the above quote. Is it not a contradiction of the meaning of The Trinity?.

Thanks for your time Philip. See you all on wednesday, Rita.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2002

Answers

Rita, Sorry for the delay in getting round to answering you. I had mislaid my book for a few days and thought I might have left it in Tallaght. But it turned up again--beside my bed, where I had put it!

You ask: 'Page 213. What does he mean by "The intrinsic nexus which exists between the Word of Revelation and it's ecclesially binding expression."?'

Balthasar's understanding of is that, while some religious experiences are built outwards from the character of subjective experience, Judaism and Christianity are religions of revelation. In the present section, Balthasar presents this revelation as the object that perfectly corresponds to our subjective search, not only corresponds but goes far beyond it. When we freely (p. 196) assent to revelation, we are taken up into a sphere which 'respects and perfects our personality' (ibid.). This objective form (the form of Christ) is not something that we could predict on the basis of our subjective needs and desires: it far surpasses them and the form of Christ is full of surprises for our subjective presuppositions. This objective form is something offered in total freedom by God. And for us, this path that God traces towards us becomes our path towards God ('I am the Way') (see the start of Balthasar's book, "Christian Meditation"). The Church, in its variety, is the present bearer of this form of Christ in so far as it is visible in the world. This is the meaning of it being 'binding'. The relationship between the Word of God in Jesus and the present reality of the Church is an inner one and it is not arbitrary ('behold, I am with you always').

Footnote 36 on p. 213 (by the way, I don't find this text very helpful): English translation: "The Christian reality itself, that is Christ and the Church... is presented to all directly, through itself in its perceptible species... but at first this direct proposition remains imperfect and confused.... Therefore the christian mystery is proposed indirectly (or mediately) in a fuller way, which is indirect (or mediate) perfect by mediated revelation, i.e. to Christ through the Church."

Then you quote from p. 214( middle of page). "The body is subordinate to it's head, & to the Magisterium only in so far as such subordination gives concrete expression to the Lord's obedience in love." And you ask: "If a christian believes that the Magisterium is stifling the life in the body rather than serving it, should that christian just live in this imperfect body in obedience to love. Or, confront the Magisterium for the sake of love?. Was this not Martin Luther's dilemma. Was he right to confront the Magisterium?"

There is always struggle. I think it is quite right to enter into th struggle to wake the Church up to faithfulness to Christ. We constantly risk becoming atrophied and of presenting our sclerosis instead of the living Christ. Thus, recently, there was an exchange of articles translated in Doctrine and Life by Pere Gy and Cardinal Ratzinger. Gy was accusing Ratzinger of not being faithful to Vatican II. Ratzinger had to defend himself. Theological exchange is important for the life of the Church.

Then you quote from p. 217: "The only enthusiasm to be taken seriously is filled with that God who is no other than he who loved the world so much he preferred it to his only son" and you ask: is this a wrong translation?. It is hard to accept that he wrote the above quote. Is it not a contradiction of the meaning of The Trinity?.' I don't think this is a mistaken translation. You ask a good and central question. It is a difficult matter. But then so is: "God love the world so much, he gave his only Son". Is this not (almost) the same point--in the words of scripture?

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2002


'Almost' is not exactly, Philip. If I ask my son to go and rescue my cat from something horrible, it dosn't mean that I love my cat more than my son. It means I trust my son. The cat has failed to listen, but I wont leave him there , and neither will my son,. I see a big difference. God bless , Rita.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2002

Moderation questions? read the FAQ