Pope Says He Will Enter History As The One Who Split The Catholic Church

[Amppax]

8 minutes ago, little2add said:

You are reading a lot into it, my friend 

I just want to be clear for visitors and lurkers what the Church does and doesn't teach. So I'd like to clarify what the Catholic understanding of "he descended into hell" is as opposed to a Protestant one. 

22 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Didn't von Balthasar believe it too?

 

Yes, sort of. Von Balthasar's views are very complex. There is a discussion of his views in the comment of the article from Called to Communion I shared. I think you'd enjoy it. Look for comments from Bryan Cross, he tends to have very helpful comments which highlight the important posts in the discussion. 

In general, I'd recommend  CtC, I think you'd really enjoy reading through a lot of their material. 

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

 Von Balthasar's views are very complex. 

Others of his colour, say, Rahner or de Lubac, weren't the direct type either; it seems to me. 

Quote

In general, I'd recommend  CtC, I think you'd really enjoy reading through a lot of their material. 

I feel humbled to be probably the youngest person ever to be recommended to CtC  

[Amppax]

8 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Others of his colour, say, Rahner or de Lubac, weren't the direct type either; it seems to me. 

1

Well, I would say few great theologians are easy to understand. I mean, try reading Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He's as strict a neo-Thomist as ever there was, but he's definitely not light reading. 

Now I do think there is a difference between the difficulties of reading the great manualists and the difficulties of reading the Nouvelle Theologie theologians. But analyzing that difference would take us too far afield from the topic at hand. 

Quote

I feel humbled to be probably the youngest person ever to be recommended to CtC  

Ha! Well, you seem to have a real hunger for theology, and CtC is a great place to satisfy that hunger, in my opinion. 

[Jack4]

23 hours ago, Amppax said:

Well, I would say few great theologians are easy to understand. I mean, try reading Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He's as strict a neo-Thomist as ever there was, but he's definitely not light reading. 

Now I do think there is a difference between the difficulties of reading the great manualists and the difficulties of reading the Nouvelle Theologie theologians. 

I agree. I must also note that the same author might use different styles of writing.

For example, in Interior Life, Garrigou-Lagrange says:

Quote

 

Are the acquired moral virtues we have just spoken of sufficient, under the influence of charity, to constitute the spiritual organism of the virtues in a Christian? Must we receive infused moral virtues?

In conformity with tradition and with a decision of Pope Clement V at the Council of Vienne,(5) the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Part II, On baptism and its effects), answers: "The grace (sanctifying), which baptism confers, is accompanied by the glorious cortege of all the virtues, which, by a special gift of God, penetrate the soul simultaneously with it." This gift is an admirable effect of the Savior's passion which is applied to us by the sacrament of regeneration.

Moreover, in this bestowal of the infused moral virtues, there is a lofty fitness that has been well set forth by St. Thomas.(6) The means, he observes, must be proportioned to the end. By the infused theological virtues we are raised and directed toward the supernatural last end. Hence it is highly fitting that we should be raised and directed by the infused moral virtues in regard to supernatural means capable of leading us to our supernatural end.

God provides for our needs not less in the order of grace than in that of nature. Therefore, since in the order of nature He has given us the capacity to succeed in practicing the acquired moral virtues, it is highly fitting that in the order of grace He should give us infused moral virtues.

 

 

In Mother of the Saviour, he says:

Quote

 

Mary gave her consent to the redemptive Incarnation when, on the day of the Annunciation, the angel said to her: “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus”—the name to be given to her Son meaning “saviour.” Mary was not ignorant of the Messianic prophecies—most particularly those of Isaias—which foretold the redemptive sufferings of the promised Saviour. Thus, when she uttered her fiat she accepted in advance for herself and for her Son all the sufferings which the redemption would involve.

She learned something still more explicit about them a few days later when Simeon spoke to her: “Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce.” A little earlier he had spoken of Jesus as . . . thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.” Mary, we are told, kept all these words in her heart. The divine plan became gradually clearer to her contemplative faith, lit up as it was by the illumination of the gift of understanding.

Mary therefore became freely Mother of the Redeemer in His role of Redeemer; she grew in her appreciation of the fact that the Son of God became Man for our salvation. She united herself to Jesus as only a mother, and a very holy mother, could in perfect oneness of love for God and souls. That was her way of fulfilling the great precept of the law—and what more perfect way could there be? Tradition is clear on Mary’s union with the Redeemer; it never tires of repeating that as Eve was united to the first man in the work of perdition Mary was united to the Redeemer in the work of redemption.

 

_____________

Quote

Ha! Well, you seem to have a real hunger for theology, and CtC is a great place to satisfy that hunger, in my opinion. 

I'm not so sure if I have a hunger, it all seems so hard.....