Robert Barron and his path

On the note of "born pre-1918" · Robert Barron and his path

Bishop Barron on His Theological Path
Bishop Barron / Bishop Robert Barron | 3.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB6w4miLEc8

I

Speaking of Lubac ... how could he write Medieval Exegesis, first chapter dedicated to the Four Senses, and miss that each of the four is obliging - the literal as well as the anagogic, moral and allegoric ones.

Bc, some seem to have this idea that it's obliging to believe any Scripture passage in at least one of them, but you needn't believe all of them. You do.

And he died on the day of St. Moses!

Arguably the Prophet and Godseer either came to assist at his judgement to Hell, or told him "I have a few things to tell you which you might want to revise while you do Purgatory"

DeClue's Views

Have you read his Medieval Exegesis? The three spiritual senses are rooted in the literal sense, and de Lubac knows this. But the literal sense is sometimes not to be taken "literally" the way fundamentalism often does. By that, it is meant that, for example, a poem is to be read literally as poetry not as propositional prose. This is where biblical fundamentalism often gets it wrong. The literal sense of Genesis is not that God made the earth in 6 days, for instance. I'd be curious to hear exactly what you find offensive in de Lubac's Medieval Exegesis. I think the problem here, again, is that people erroneously lump in de Lubac with "some" who do X, Y, or Z that he had nothing to do with. It gets frustrating when someone like de Lubac is accused of errors committed by others. It's like people point to the problems in Catholic theology today and blame de Lubac indiscriminately, often without actually having read any of his work. I highly recommend to anyone that they read "The Splendor of the Church." It is an absolutely beautiful theology of the Church written by de Lubac and is totally Catholic in every legitimately sense of the word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DeClue's Views "Have you read his Medieval Exegesis?"

No, I have read I pars, Q 1, A 10.

"The three spiritual senses are rooted in the literal sense, and de Lubac knows this."

Fine with that. Do all of his admirers know it? I think if some think they can opt for "allegoric" (one of the spiritual ones) instead of literal, these would be ignoring that.

"But the literal sense is sometimes not to be taken "literally" the way fundamentalism often does. By that, it is meant that, for example, a poem is to be read literally as poetry not as propositional prose."

Where in the Middle Ages anywhere, Bible exegesis or elsewhere, do you find, "poetry is not propositional"?

Using figures of speech, one word or phrase translating to meaning literally another one, fine. Poems may be richer in this, but there is no real difference between poetry and prose in that respect.

Someone has argued "under the shadow of thy wings" in a psalm is not literal, but when a boy spreads out his arms in cruciform shape, he is usually playing at being a bird or airplane, that is sth which has wings, and therefore this literally refers to Adam and Eve in Sheol finding rest when Christ on the Cross (He's God, remember) spread out His arms on the Cross as a boy playing at birds.

"The literal sense of Genesis is not that God made the earth in 6 days, for instance."

Heaven, earth and all in it .... where does Lubac support that, if he does?

Because, to St. Thomas, it fairly arguably is the literal sense of Genesis 1 recapitulated in Exodus 20 on Sabbath commandment.

St. Augustine was respected, but his one moment creation was not followed except in ways accomodating literal six days. St. Thomas knew the other Church Fathers, except him and Origen, considered the creation days as literal.

"It gets frustrating when someone like de Lubac is accused of errors committed by others. It's like people point to the problems in Catholic theology today and blame de Lubac indiscriminately, often without actually having read any of his work."

How come his admirers are so keen on opposing Fundamentalist exegesis, which very well matches the first, literal, sense?

I don't claim to have read him, but I do claim to conclude from his admirers he didn't warn them against very shady moves with Genesis 1. He was far from first, Father Vigouroux proposed a compromise which could be characterised as "Day Age Theory", Mancenot who refuted that very soundly proposed what is referred to as Framework Theory, six days being a literary framework. But Lubac would have known there were neither a Vigouroux nor a Mancenot among orthodox Medieval exegetes.

II

2:58 Didn't one ex-Fascist also work on GaSp?

I mean some of the things in it read much better in a local and temporal context from back when Dom Helder Camara was a you Integralista. Some could have been penned - without absurdity, as long as it's about the then Brazil - by Plinio Salgado himself.

But they are rubbish if extended to all space and all time or even all time remaining since then and all space - like Church sharing all the concerns of everyone especially the poorest.

You can say that when many poor fathers are asking "will I be able to revise catechism with the children after Mass on Sunday", but hardly when they are asking "will he drop out from school, my boy?" You see, catechism is salvific, school isn't.

Or was Dom Helder Camara on another "document" of that "council"?

Note very well, Camara is one man I mostly respect in the Vatican II sect - and Salgado too.

III

4:59 Wait, you said Lubac was silenced "in the fifties"?

After Pius XII had made his arguably Honorius like move with Humani Generis not condemning outright the idea of non-human ancestors to Adam's body? Or, not fully human ones etc?

7:19 "rather a kind of Middle Path between the two"

Wouldn't he have rationally speaking preferred being more conservative than Pius XII?

And I think you answered the query on how he stood to literalism in Genesis (very clearly demanded by more than one of "his" heroes) by stating he was with Ratzinger on the review "communio". Ratzinger famously in 1990's full out helped Wojtyla betray this. CCC - first all Church Catechism from Rome which is NOT Young Earth Creationist and at least compatible (Pius X) with Geocentrism. Work of Ratzinger under Wojtyla.

IV

9:35 communio - comparable to Stalin : neither Czarist nor faithful to all of Leninism (not saying strict Leninism and concilium aren't worse than communio and Stalin).

V

10:15 Considering "communio" was nothing like YEC or Geocentric, it's wishful thinking to imagine it was not caving in to contemporary culture.

If you want a conversation without concession, don't look on Lubac, look on Chesterton, or to some extent Tolkien. But note, they were overtly scathing about aspects of it.

For that matter CSL, but making allowance for his errors as an Anglican (his at least initial rejection of YEC position is arguably due to "bishop" Gore). And for needing to reject them, as you reject the Montanism of Terence (not Hill, the early patristic era writer).

Bishop Robert Barron

Tell me precisely where you think Henri de Lubac "caved in" to the culture?! I would like specific books and citations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bishop Robert Barron I think diocese of Paris, Ratzinger, Wojtyla are three instances who are sufficiently loyal to his positions for "guilt by association" to somewhat work. Though the procedure is obviously normally very risky.

Take Ratzinger's involvement in a document on Bible exegesis, condemning Fundamentalism in the timespan 1992 - 1994, take the new Christmas proclamation ("unknown ages after" for "2957 after" Creation), take his and obviously Wojtyla's involvement in CCC, and both, like Lubac, "communio" men, and take the allergia Paris archdiocese with suffragan dioceses surrounding it has shown to my Young Earth Creationist work, on this basis I think one can safely presume Lubac was no YEC or Geocentric.

You tell me where he wrote and spoke about how to interpret Genesis now as opposed to how the Medievals did, I'll find a quotation if I can access the text.

If I am wrong, you tell me a text or quote, in which Lubac advocated Young Earth Creationism as a position that can be held now.

Obviously, as all this happened 92-94 after he died in 91, I could be wrong.

I do not quite think I am so. I do not think his friends waited till his death to betray his positions.

Plus, confer the comment of mine which starts:

// 2:58 Didn't one ex-Fascist also work on GaSp? //

Meaning Dom Helder Camara (who considered his erstwhile Integralismo a "péché de jeunesse" / "ungdomssynd" however you say that in English) having lived in Brazil, before the telenovelas, had excuses which Lubac did not have for claiming the Church shares the joy and sorrow, hopes and fears of people, especially the poorest.

While Latin doesn't have definite article for the title words, vernacular translations arguably have.

"Les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des hommes de ce temps,"

Definite article. In Lubac's language.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_fr.html

Same text:

"57.5. Certes, le progrès actuel des sciences et des techniques qui, en vertu de leur méthode, ne sauraient parvenir jusqu’aux profondeurs de la réalité, peut avantager un certain phénoménisme et un certain agnosticisme, lorsque les méthodes de recherche propres à ces disciplines sont prises, à tort, comme règle suprême pour la découverte de toute vérité. Et même on peut craindre que l’homme se fiant trop aux découvertes actuelles, en vienne à penser qu’il se suffit à lui-même et qu’il n’a plus à chercher de valeurs plus hautes.

"6. Cependant ces conséquences fâcheuses ne découlent pas nécessairement de la culture moderne et de doivent pas nous exposer à la tentation de méconnaître ses valeurs positives. Parmi celles-ci, il convient de signaler : le goût des sciences et la fidélité sans défaillance à la vérité dans les recherches scientifiques, la nécessité de travailler en équipe dans des groupes spécialisés, le sens de la solidarité internationale, la conscience de plus en plus nette de la responsabilité que les savants ont d’aider et même de protéger les hommes, la volonté de procurer à tous des conditions de vie plus favorables, à ceux-là surtout qui sont privés de responsabilité ou qui souffrent d’indigence culturelle. Dans toutes ces valeurs, l’accueil du message évangélique pourra trouver une sorte de préparation, et la charité divine de celui qui est venu pour sauver le monde la fera aboutir."

So, the text is proning, basically "Rohan needs Orthanc" ... I suppose you are sufficiently aware of LotR to see what I am hinting at.

No, that is really and truly giving modern science to much credit, both as to its finding of factual truth and as to its beneficence in moral truth.

Example:

What if your child's school made a life altering decision for your child without your input?
Alliance Defending Freedom | 7.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQGDAhJoDkw

What's behind that? The progress of human sciences!

"31.1. Pour que chacun soit mieux armé pour faire face à ses responsabilités, tant envers lui-même qu’envers les différents groupes dont il fait partie, on aura soin d’assurer un plus large développement culturel, en utilisant les moyens considérables dont le genre humain dispose aujourd’hui. Avant tout, *l’éducation des jeunes, quelle que soit leur origine sociale, doit être ordonnée de telle façon qu’elle puisse susciter des hommes et des femmes qui ne soient pas seulement cultivés, mais qui aient aussi une forte personnalité,* car notre temps en a le plus grand besoin."

This education equality and the supposed needs to forge a personality among age peers (lots of them, like in a class room) is obviously one obstacle to parental liberties.

In other words, Lubac and Dom Helder don't seem too fond of parental liberties in education. This was more like what I was looking for.