Lonergan on Henri de Lubac

Lonergan has quite a pungent but extremely clear remark about Henri de Lubac in CWL 18:350. He acknowledges his confrere's erudition and his holiness, but says that he is not a competent speculative thinker.

This might have all sorts of ramifications, since de Lubac was von Balthasar's teacher.

Antecedents again

Pierre Rousselot influenced Henri de Lubac.

The Neo-Scholastic attempt was to explain doctrinal development in logical terms: the process of development was the logical process of making explicit what was merely implicit in revelation. Revelation here was clearly still understood as a set of propositional truths.
A major development came when Pierre Rousselot (1878-1915) suggested that revelation be conceived not as a sum total of distinct truths, propositions, judgments, but as a kind of knowledge that is indefinitely cashable (monnayable) in distinct ideas and propositions which explicitate it without being able to exhaust it, and without claiming to supplement it. Revelation, he proposed, was the living and loving knowledge that the apostles had of Jesus. The mode in which the many dogmas are precontained in the single changeless knowledge which is the apostolic deposit is not logical, but Christological. [Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990) 202.] De Lubac’s contribution to the question of doctrinal development is largely a restatement of that of Rousselot, whose papers he studied and published. [See I. Coelho, "The Tradition-Innovation Dynamic in Christian Doctrines," Tradition and Innovation: Philosophy of Rootedness and Openness, ed. Saju Chacklackal (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2011) 225-265, at ??.] 

De Lubac’s materials: the Fathers, the great Medievals, the Christian Platonist Maine de Biran, and Blondel. [Nichols 204.]
De Lubac rejected any view of ressourcement that scorned later development as decadent. [Nichols 205.]
When removed from teaching, de Lubac turned to the topic of doctrinal development. His chief contribution was a bulletin in which he expressed his views by criticising those of others, notably Neo-Thomists from Gardeil to Boyer. He distinguished his own views chiefly from the Logicism of Boyer. His positive remarks amount to a re-statement of Rousselot, who, being unpublished, was unknown. This bulletin would bear fruit in Rahner’s more massive exploration of the theme, and in the making of Dei Verbum. [Nichols 206. See H. de Lubac, “Bulletin de théologie fondamentale: le problème du développement du dogme,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 35 (1948) 130-160.]

Henri de Lubac was von Balthasar's teacher.

Von Balthasar was involved in the translation of Pierre Rousselot's Les yeux de la foi (1910) (dt.: Die Augen des Glaubens. Mit einer Einführung von Josef Trütsch. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt von Albert Mantel und Hans Urs von Balthasar. Einsiedeln: Johannes 1963)

Im deutschen Sprachraum wurden vor allem Hans Urs von Balthasar und Karl Rahner von Rousselot beeinflusst. ["Pierre Rousselot," Wikipedia, at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Rousselot, as of 20 March 2013]

The Italian translation of Les yeux de la foi borrows subtitles from von Balthasar's translation; that translation has also served as a constant guide in the work of the Italian translation, as the editors / translators admit (see Gli occhi della fede, tr. Claudio del Ponte, presentazione di Ursicin G.G. Derungs [Milano: Jaca Book, 1977] 7).

Von Balthasar himself has a book on de Lubac: Henri de Lubac: Sein organisches Lebenswerk (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1976); It. tr. Il padre Henri de Lubac: La tradizione fonte di rinnovamento, tr. Aldo Terrin (Milano: Jaca Book, 1978). In the very first sentence of the Preface he calls de Lubac "mio maestro ed amico." (11)

La voce 'dinamismo' ci da' l'occasione di dire qualcosa su coloro che sono stati gli animatori del pensiero di de Lubac; due nomi vengono immediatamente alla memoria: Blondel e Marechal. ... a loro si deve aggiungere il nome di Rousselot (che insegnava san Tommaso in modo nuovo). Ma a nessuno dei due si lego' de Lubac, nella misura in cui essi erano dei sistematici; da loro egli assunse solamente l'elan fondamentale.... (von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac 15)

See also Antonio Russo, Henri de Lubac: teologia e dogma nella storia. L'influsso di Blondel.

"Maurice Blondel, the Christian Philosopher that Cardinal Ruini Recommends. In the words of the one who knows him best, all the reasons that update the teaching of this unjustly forgotten philosopher. Interview with Peter Henrici." http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6916?eng=y


So: Blondel - Marechal - Rousselot - de Lubac - von Balthasar, with the qualifications about the first two, and a stronger link between the last three.

Antecedents

Talking with Gianni Caputa yesterday, on the way back from Nazareth, I learnt that von Balthasar was a disciple of Henri de Lubac. I know that de Lubac was himself influenced very deeply by Pierre Rousselot, whose unpublished work he edited for publication. See my paper, Tradition and Innovation in Christianity. 

I was wondering about the connection between de Lubac and Blondel. A cursory search of the net throws up a book that i actually have, though in Nashik: Antonio Russo, Henri de Lubac: teologia e dogma nella storia. L'influsso di Blondel.

On the other hand, it might be interesting to explore De Smet's roots in Pierre Scheuer and Joseph Marechal. 

Balthasar and Heidegger

Balthasar seems to be influenced by Heidegger. Rahner clearly is. Both are influenced by de Lubac. But their tendencies are opposed. How? What? Why? 

It would seem that Balthasar both welcomes and unwelcome Heidegger. See: “O’Regan delivered a magnificent analysis of the complex relationship between Balthasar and Heidegger, citing both a ‘welcoming’ and an ‘unwelcoming’ of the latter in Balthasar’s theology. It was the unwelcoming which O’Regan was especially interested in, citing evocatively Balthasar’s conception of a ‘gigantic misremembering’ on Heidegger’s part which distorted the relationship between Heidegger and Christian thought.” Jones Irwin, “A Contemporary Platonic-Christianity? – On Radical Orthodoxy.” http://www.mic.ul.ie/stephen/vol12/Review.htm as of 2 August 2010.

See Rossi, Osvaldo. “Herrlichkeit e Sein: Heidegger nel pensiero di Hans Urs von Balthasar.” Communio: Rivista Internazionale di Teologia e Cultura 147 (1996) 94-105. [STS R F-35. 1996 (1).]

Henri de Lubac, bibliography

For recent articles on de Lubac, see Gregorianum 78 and 83 and Revue des sciences religieuses 77.

De Lubac and Lonergan

Raymond Moloney, "De Lubac and Lonergan on the Supernatural," Theological Studies (Sep. 2008). FindArticles.com. 17 Jul, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_3_69/ai_n29459020/

A sympathetic article. Moloney is director of the Lonergan Centre, Dublin. Proposes that Lonergan refines certain issues in de Lubac.

Henri de Lubac

Just discovering the connection between de Lubac, Danielou and von Balthasar: the latter two were de Lubac's students.

Guy Mansini also acknowledges the de Lubac - von Balthasar link. If this is true, it means that de Lubac is (no longer) ultra but con. The web says that John XXIII invited him as peritus to the council, and that Paul VI and John Paul II both esteemed him deeply. This, despite the fact that he was banned from publishing (for about 9 years) after his Surnaturel.

One of the reasons for the furore around his work was also that he attacked Suarez - till then regarded as one of the bulwarks of Thomism. He showed how Suarez had commented on what are now known to be spurious works, falsely attributed to Thomas.

De Lubac co-founded Concilium, but broke with it when it became a journal of dissent rather than implementation of the council. He joined von Balthasar and Ratzinger in founding Communio, believing that the only way to renew theology was ressourcement or critical appropriation of the Church's tradition.

Back to the supernatural: I do not know what exactly de Lubac has said, and I know only very vaguely what Lonergan holds on the matter. But I do have the feeling that there is something to be chewed at here, and that Lonergan might have something very interesting to contribute... But: could it be that great minds have missed this all along? Can't presume... And: is there any study of the matter in Lonergan?

And: does Millbank fuse together what Thomas had so carefully distinguished (not separated) - the gratuity of creation and the gratuity of grace? (See http://www.leithart.com/archives/001960.php).

Interestingly, however, Millbank's reflections on the human being / human existence itself as gift seem to veer on Lonergan's reflections on operative grace / gift of God's love as creating the response (our love for God), or as itself being the response. But on this, see my blog entry on Charles Hefling. More to be studied here.

Another note: de Lubac was enormously interested in Maritain's work. Does Maritain take his natural / supernatural distinctions from de Lubac? What then of the religions?

De Lubac's properly theological influence consists in the re-Platonizing of theology, a re-Platonizing that has been developed and continued in the postmodern drive to avoid the strictures of Heidegger against onto-theology. (Mansini 597. References to: J. Komonchak, "Theology and Culture at Mid-Century: The Example of Henri de Lubac," ThStds 91 (1990) 579-602. Wayne Hankey, "Le role du neoplatonisme dans les tentatives postmodernes d'echapper a l'onto-theologie," La metaphysique: son histoire, sa critique, ses jeux, Actes du XXVIIe Congres de l'Association de Societes de Philosophie de Langue Francaise, 2 vols. (Quebec: Les Presses de L'Universite Laval, 2000); and "Neoplatonism and Contemporary French Philosophy," Dionysius 23 (2005) 161-189. Both articles to be found on Hankey's website.)