Talk:Hans Urs von Balthasar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism[edit]

I removed the following unsourced statements from the page. It would be good to see these placed into a section on criticism that could address these points in a full context.

The orthodoxy of Balthasar’s theories of Christ’s Descent into Hell (which is closer to the Protestant tradition than to Catholicism) and of universal salvation is often questioned. His endorsement of Tarot reading, though less well known, can also alarm previously sympathetic readers.

When/if I get the chance, I'll do it, but until then here's a convenient summary of the conversation:

The Population of Hell, by Avery Cardinal Dulles. First Things May 2003. [Addressing Balthasar's Dare We Hope?].

Will All Be Saved?, Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 115 (August/September 2001): 77-104. The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar. New Oxford Review March 2000. Is Hell Closed Up & Boarded Over?, by David Watt. New Oxford Review Feb. 1999. On Hope, Heaven and Hell, by Nick Jr. Healy. The University Concourse, Volume II, Issue 9. May 6, 1997. Von Balthasar and Salvation, by James T. O'Connor. Homiletic & Pastoral Review July 1989.The Population of Hell, by Avery Cardinal Dulles. First Things May 2003. [Addressing Balthasar's Dare We Hope?]. Will All Be Saved?, Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 115 (August/September 2001): 77-104. The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar. New Oxford Review March 2000. Is Hell Closed Up & Boarded Over?, by David Watt. New Oxford Review Feb. 1999. On Hope, Heaven and Hell, by Nick Jr. Healy. The University Concourse, Volume II, Issue 9. May 6, 1997.

Von Balthasar and Salvation, by James T. O'Connor. Homiletic & Pastoral Review July 1989.

Hyperlinks at Balthasar online archive Freder1ck 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck[reply]

I'm pleased to see some sourced criticisms and the reference to Valentin Tomberg added. However, neither Balthasar nor Tomberg endorse Tarot reading. Tomberg's Méditations sûr les 22 arcanes majeurs du Tarot is not a manual for Tarot reading but instead a series of reflections on the depictions of the Marseilles tarot from a Christian, idiosyncratic, and theosophic/ hermetic perspective. Balthasar's defense of Tomberg is quite in line with Henri de Lubac's defense of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. In all three cases, it's a matter of lauding the trajectory of the project, but not endorsing every single position of the author in question. In his introduction to Tomberg's [anonymously published] book, Balthasar also makes reference to the writings of Charles Williams (UK writer), whose work brings together both Christianity and Western esotericism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

More discussion[edit]

Some thoughts about the article. I'm wondering if the controversy is being overplayed. Given the fact that Von Balthasar's theology comprises a lot more than the controverted stuff about the descent into Hell - and a lot of it has been received appreciatively by magisterial theologians, eg. the last two Popes - it is probably somewhat misleading to open the discussion with the controversy over the stuff in Mysterium Paschale and Was Durfen Wir Hoffen? It gives the impression that Balthasar's work has been marked by controversy to the same degree as other theologians like Kung or Schillebeeckx. I would suggest using the Trilogy to organize the "Writings" section, beginning by explaining what it is, and continuing by explaining each part and related works. The controversy would obviously need to be stated, but could be introduced when talking about Theo-Drama. There should probably be some links to the First Things articles between Alyssa Pitstick and Fr. Oakes with regard to these issues. Also, the article probably needs to talk about the community of Saint John, seeing as von Balthasar thought this was his life's work. 

  - harlomcspears

For more on Balthasar's theology of Holy Saturday, see Dr. David Lauber's book "Barth on the Descent into Hell," pages 42-65. Here is the googlebook link: http://books.google.com/books?id=QKtwSzTqLrwC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=dr.+lauber+saturday&source=bl&ots=ppoIrv8YrB&sig=qrdK1vcLQaEp-Fbji2iA_8YpKYc&hl=en&ei=gCEDSv-0JsqvmQePvqX1BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPP11,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.110.127 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with harlomcspears and have tried to contextualize the whole debate over Hell and hope, retitling the "Controversy" subheading accordingly and adding sources on both sides of the debate. In the process, I absorbed and rephrased some of the old information about Holy Saturday, especially where it seemed overly technical for a Wikipedia discussion, but some of it will likely have to be restored. I'm going to keep adding material to the "Writings and thought" section that hopefully people will find objectively helpful. Thomasjacobi (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google books[edit]

Some pages doesn't apppear in Google books (this is normal of course because it is just preview but I think that we should remove links which sometimes work and sometimes doesn't). --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they have developed a perpetual error, we should really remove them so as to present a working article. I am reading Elucidations and New Elucidations by Hans Urs von Balthasar. They are really interesting books. I wonder why they are not mentioned in the article. Alan347 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medjugorje[edit]

I removed (twice) a section "Support for Medjugorje". That's obviously propaganda by Medjugorje apparition supporters. Its content is hugely biased and the theme does not belong here. UvB has an enormous body of theological writings, and his alleged "support for Medjugorje" is, in the best case, irrelevant - the propagandists couldn't even find a line among his thousands pages of writings that refer to Medjugorje, and had to resort to alleged interviews (I don't discuss whether he personally "supported" Medjugorje apparitions or not, even less whether the apparitions deserve support or not - that's totally irrelevant here). --Leonbloy (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be properly referenced so I don't understand a basis for removing it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Urs von Balthasar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Urs von Balthasar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure[edit]

I restructured the headings and content to put together the headings for writings and thought with sections and content for works, other works, bibliography, etc. I re-structured content but did not add or remove content in this edit. Tkctwbd (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

I've added more detailed biographical information based on Peter Henrici's essay and Balthasar's own accounts of himself in various books, which I happen to have at my disposal right now. In the process of doing this, I have had to "absorb" and rephrase much of the old biography to make it fit the new structure. Please do not interpret this as "deletionism". Thomasjacobi (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar&oldid=1217253772"