巴尔塔萨简介
刘阿斯
瑞士神学家汉斯·乌斯·冯·巴尔塔萨（Hans Urs von Balthasar, 1905-88）是20世纪最重要的神学家之一，被与其同时代的天主教神学家吕巴克（Henri de Lubac, 1896-1991）称为“我们时代欧洲最有学问的人”。这样的评价是中肯的。巴尔塔萨无疑是位天才。他生前共出版了85本书，超过500篇的文章，将近100种翻译作品，还不包括大量的短篇以及由他笔录整理的60卷斯佩尔（Adrienne von Speyr)的著作。巴尔塔萨最闻名的作品当属其14卷（英译15卷）煌煌巨著神学三部曲：《上帝的荣耀：神学美学》、《神学戏剧学》、《神学逻辑学》，从美（pulchrum）、善（bonum）、真（verum）的角度来接近天主的启示。
巴尔塔萨青年时代热爱音乐，原本想要成为钢琴演奏家。后兴趣转向文学和哲学，先后在维也纳、柏林和苏黎世求学，以论文《德意志灵魂默示录》获得了德语文学博士学位，之后被召进入耶稣会学习神学和哲学。先是学习以新托马斯主义为基础的新经院哲学（neo-scholasticism) ，后转向教父神学家的灵性神学（spirituality-theology)，并就希腊教父（爱任纽、奥利金、尼撒的格里高利、忏悔者马克西姆等）和重要的现代神学家（卡尔·巴特、布伯、贝尔纳诺斯、瓜尔蒂尼、莱茵霍尔德·施奈德以及所有三部曲中涉及的作家）写作了大量研究性著作。
巴尔塔萨从未在大学里任过职，虽然年轻时曾被提供这样的岗位，他还是选择加入耶稣会，成为了一名修士，来到巴塞尔。在那里，他遇到了医生兼神秘主义者斯佩尔，这位女性对他的写作产生了重大影响。巴尔塔萨与她一起创建了 “世俗机构” ——圣若望团体（Community of St. John）。由于创办此机构之需要，1950年，巴尔塔萨离开自己待了25年之久的耶稣会。1972年，他与达尼埃鲁（Jean Danielou）、吕巴克、拉辛格（Joseph Ratzinger，后来成为教宗Benedict XVI）一道创建了至今闻名的刊物 Communio: International Catholic Review。
自从上个世纪60年代以来，学界对巴尔塔萨的研究就没中断过。巴尔塔萨的神学以其神学美学（theological aesthetics）最广为人知，从“美”这一被遗忘的“存在的先验属性”入手，巴尔塔萨揭示了世界之美的原由和一切美的泉源、中心和顶峰——道成肉身的基督之美，并展现了天主启示自身之美和人对天主之美的感知的神哲学依据。他的神学有时也被人等同于“神学美学”，或者被贴上诸如“跪拜神学”、“神学人类学”、“托马斯主义”等等标签。但事实上，巴尔塔萨的神学无法被任何一种理论标签所概括。巴尔塔萨的神学包罗万象，涵盖了他对从荷马（Homer）开始直至20世纪整个西方文明的理解。在他的著作中，我们会看到形而上学、美学、现象学、认识论、政治哲学、灵修学、人类学、哲学史、文学史、神学史的各个因素，但他却无法被规定在这些领域的任何一类。而另一方面，我们却可看到，无论是论述哪个主题，巴尔塔萨总是试图提供给我们一个视角——天主启示的视角、信仰的视角——来看待思想史和我们时代的问题。这也是我们今天为何要继续读巴尔塔萨。为了那深邃而浩瀚的思想，也为了我们可以从纷繁芜杂的世俗之声之外另找到一块高地，去理解我们面临的思想遗产和时代问题。
虽然巴尔塔萨并未在教会担任重要职务，他对天主教会的影响不言而喻。梵二前后，巴尔塔萨的主张与会议确定下来的许多中心思想不谋而合。1960年代以后，巴尔塔萨的神学三部曲的陆续出版为他带来了学术声誉，也引起天主教神学界的关注和知识界的推崇。他被任命为宗座神学委员会委员，与卡尔·拉纳（Karl Rahner）、汉斯·昆 (Hans Kung)、谢列贝克斯(Edward Schillebeeckx)等一道，享有极高的评价。1984年，因其神学贡献，他在梵蒂冈获得了天主教的最高荣誉——保禄六世奖。1987年，他在奥地利获得“莫扎特音乐奖”。鉴于巴尔塔萨的重要成就，教宗若望保禄二世（John Paul II）一直想授予其枢机主教之职，但巴尔塔萨却几次推却。最终他出于顺服和友谊而同意接受，却在授予仪式的前两天安详离世。
Von Balthasar on the Trinity
Dr. Adrian Walker
I’m going to talk about von Balthasar’s understanding of the Trinity and say something about how his understanding of the Trinity is significant for the Christian life. But I’m going to approach those two points by way of a few preliminary considerations if that’s alright with everyone. I should say before I begin that I’m very grateful to be invited to speak to you. It’s a real honor for me. I wish that it could be in person. But for many reasons, that’s difficult. Obviously, both the distance and the the situation were covered. But thank you for inviting me and thank you to the audience for coming. It’s very kind of you.
One preliminary remark is a reminder of basic Catholic doctrine. Catholics confess that the one God exists as a Trinity of persons. The one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Catholics also confess that these three persons, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are truly distinct from one another. But they also say that these three are not three separate gods, so there are three persons who are really distinct from each other and yet only one God. Another preliminary consideration is to point out that Catholic theologians from the beginning have tried to show two things at least: one is that this confession is not unreasonable. It is not contradictory to say that there is God who is three persons. The other point is that it’s significant that God exists as three persons. So the theologians have tried to show that the Trinity is not contradictory but very significant and meaningful. Hans Urs von Balthasar of course is one of these theologians and he does both of these things. He tries to show both of these points that it’s not contradictory to say that one God is three persons or exists as three persons. He also tries to show why it’s important, why it’s significant, and why it’s beautiful that God should be a Trinity of persons.
I’d like to talk about his reflections on both of those points this evening. I know it’s morning for you all. But for me, it’s evening still. I did manage to prepare some written notes which I sent to Karl about 20 minutes ago. I don’t know if there’s time to distribute them but certainly you can look at them afterwards. Now before talking about what Balthasar has to say about the Trinity, it’s good to stop for a moment to answer a prior question. The prior question is what are we referring to when we talk about God or when we talk about the one God? Because eventually we want to see what Balthasar says about the one God as a Trinity. What does it mean for the one God to be a Trinity?
That’s where we want to go. But before getting there, we want to say something about the one God. What are we referring to when we talk about the one God? Now one traditional answer that Balthasar himself accepts and develops is that when we talk about the one God, we are referring to the first cause or source of existence for everything else. What does that mean to talk about the first cause of existence? It means the first cause of existence is something that gives existence. It gives being to everything else but doesn’t get it from another source. But it’s also the first cause of existence because it doesn’t get existence from anything before itself. There’s nothing behind it or before it or older than it that could give it existence.
Think about the difference between the first cause and your parents. When your parents give you existence, somehow that’s one of the reasons why we are grateful to our parents and we show them reverence. We show reverence to our parents and in fact have a certain reverence for all of our ancestors because in part they gave us existence. But they themselves received existence. They themselves depend or depended on other things to get being and existence, so for them to give being is to transmit it. They get it from somewhere else and then they passed it along. But that’s not the way it is with the first cause. The first cause doesn’t just transmit existence that it receives from somewhere else. It’s the absolute beginning. All other existence comes from it. It doesn’t get existence from anything else.
It’s the first. Let us go back to the comparison with the parents. The parents transmit existence. They hand it on. It’s like a gift that they receive and then they hand the gift on. But the first cause is the absolute giver and originator of the gift. There’s no one behind him that could give him the gift. He’s the beginning of the whole process of giving and the whole action of giving. If there’s any gift for the parents to transmit, it’s because he gives the gift but doesn’t get it from anything else. So this leads to another fundamental difference. The first cause of existence accounts for the very existence of the world itself. Your parents transmit you existence within a world that they are parts of the world already and they presuppose that the world is there. Then they act within that world to pass on existence to you. They marry, come together, beget children, and raise them. That’s all happening inside of a world that already exists.
But the first cause doesn’t just transmit existence inside of the world. The first cause is the reason why there’s a world in the first place. If a world is there at all, if there’s a world inside of which our parents can give us existence and transmit existence to us, it’s because the first cause gives the world existence in the first place. Everything, the whole universe, and everything in it gets existence from the first cause, but he doesn’t get existence from anywhere else or anything else. He has the fullness of existence already and then gives it to us.
It’s a first preliminary point. But we can go further to talk about the one God is to point in our speech to the first cause, then the first cause is the one who does not receive existence from anything else but gives existence to everything else. In doing that accounts for the fact that there is a universe at all. He creates and gives being to everything other than himself. But this suggests yet a further and preliminary point we have to keep in mind that this first cause doesn’t just have existence or being and then gives it. We actually have to say that he is existence, he is being. Why? because he doesn’t receive existence. There is no difference in him between what receives existence, the receiver, and the existence that he receives. There’s no difference between the receiver of existence and the existence itself, for the two are the same. But if you’re the same as your existence, then by definition you don’t just have it, you are it. So the first cause doesn’t just have existence.
The first cause is existence. It is being. Out of that fullness, it gives being and existence to everything else. I don’t know Chinese and so I don’t know how you would translate that term (existence) into Chinese. But one thing that you have to understand about the term in English or at least in the theological English that I’m using right now, the thing that you have to understand is that it signifies a perfection, a fullness, and a richness. It’s not just the fact of occupying space. It’s not just the fact of a sort of sitting there in a kind of boring, neutral, and indifferent way. There’s a perfection, a richness, and a fullness to it. Think about it. What does it mean for us to exist, for us to be. It means to be alive. It means to think. It means to be able to communicate and to think and to move and to do all kinds of things. It means for us to be able to unfold this incredibly rich activity. If you took away our existence, the ability to do all of those wonderful things would be gone. To see what I’m saying. There’s a way that for us to be is to enjoy this incredible richness and fullness. We just have existence. Imagine that you were existence. Imagine that you just were that fullness, that richness, that abundance. You would be pure richness, pure perfection, pure nobility, standing by itself. You would be infinite perfection. So that’s another point.
So these are the preliminary points that I’m making. When we say the one God, we mean the first cause. When we say the first cause, we mean this infinite perfection, this infinite perfection is sheer being and existence, all of the richness, all of the fullness, all of the beauty, all of the goodness that goes into existing, and that goes into being. The first cause just is that by itself, with no help from the outside. But then that first cause gives existence, it gives being, and it gives a share in that richness to everything else. It creates. That’s why he accounts for the existence of the universe and everything in it.
But at this point, a question arises, we’ve been talking about the one God, we’ve been saying that the one God is the first cause, and we’ve been saying that he’s the fullness of existence that gives existence to everything else. But if you think about it, to say that means that the one God is completely unique. There’s only one. He’s the fullness of being, standing by itself, and independently of everything else. In fact, he’s the source of everything else. But there can only be one of those. There can only be one self-standing fullness of being. Now think about that one self-standing fullness of being. So there’s already one independently of us or of the world or of anything else. If you mentally thought the world away, if you mentally pretended it didn’t exist, there would still be God and the first cause. He wouldn’t lack anything. Because that one is already the fullness of existence, already all of the perfection, all of the goodness, all of the beauty that goes into existing, that goes into being. He is that all in himself already, even if we don’t exist, even if we had never existed, even if you think, even if in your imagination you imagine that the world is gone, he’s still there and lacks absolutely nothing.
But it’s just here that an interesting question arises. The question is what’s the point of us existing man? If you already have one, the infinite perfection of existing of being in itself already, what’s the point of our existence? This is a question that Balthasar thought a lot about actually. He saw it as a question that was decisive for the dialogue with other religions. Because some other religions, for example, some of the polytheistic religions, let’s say that the ancient Near East would have said that we exist because something is lacking to God, something is lacking to the Divine. So you have some of these myths in ancient Mesopotamia that say that the gods created man in order to do work for them. Balthasar says that idea is ridiculous because God is already complete in himself. He’s more than complete. He’s infinite perfection all by himself without any outside help. So he doesn’t need us to fulfill some lack because he has no lack. So that answer is ridiculous.
But there’s another kind of answer in the history of religions that he thinks is not helpful. It’s basically the idea that says yes, there’s an infinite one, but our existence is basically a kind of empty appearance of that One. For example, there are certain schools of Indian thought that say this, one of the branches of Vedanta which is one of the six orthodox schools in Indian (the non-dualist Sankara) who says basically that the distinct existence of things other than the One is an illusion. Balthasar says that’s wrong as well. True, we don’t add anything and are not necessary to fill a lack (in response to the ancient Mesopotamian thought). But at the same time, we’re really distinct from God (in response to the Indian thought). So those are the unhelpful answers according to Balthasar. What is the helpful answer? It’s twofold. On the one hand, the point of our existence is that it is a gift, an utterly gratuitous gift. God, the first cause, who is the infinite fullness and perfection of being already has no need of us. So our existence can only be a gratuitous gift on his part. The entire universe is the result of an act of free donation, of free giving. On the other hand, it’s part of the gift that the whole universe should be really distinct from the first cause, should be really distinct from God.
That’s the point I wanna unfold a little bit. Because unfolding it will bring us closer to the consideration of the Trinity. Someone might ask why should the first cause want to give us existence and not only give us existence but give us existence as really distinct from himself. Why would he want us to have this gift? Not only of existing but of existing as things that are distinct from him, and Balthasar’s answer is that he wants us to be in communion with him. He wants us to be in relationship with him. He wants us to be in friendship with him.
That’s astonishing. Right? Whatever Christianity is, it is not boring. That’s an astonishing claim. The absolute infinite perfection of being who has no need of us should not only give us this gift of existing but should take the gift a step further and call us into a friendship with himself. Again, that he brings us into friendship with himself is not the reflection of a need on his part. He doesn’t need us. The whole point is that for us to be able to relate to him as friends is itself the highest and most generous gift that he could possibly give. Now as a biblical theologian, Balthasar is very attentive to how the scripture tells the story of God’s offering this supreme gift, this supremely generous gift to us of communion with himself. We know the stages of this story. The first stage is creation. The next stage is the choosing: the election of the people of Israel in order to belong to God in a special way. We can remember how in the Old Testament, this special belonging is portrayed not only as a friendship but as a kind of marriage. Actually they’re different images. There’s marriage and there’s also a Father-Son relationship. From the beginning though we know that this covenant and relationship was meant to be extended to all mankind. So not only for the Jews but for everybody. Then we can remember how the fulfillment of this promise to extend the relation to everyone begins in Christ and continues in the Church. We see a fruit of it today. Here I am in America speaking to people in China who believe the same thing.
Then we can think about how the final culmination of the promise is eternal life. But you may be asking what about the Trinity? So far I’ve just been trying to give a framework for understanding what we mean when we talk about the one God as a Trinity? Because one of the things that we mean, according to Balthasar, when we say the one God is the Trinity, one of the things that we mean is that he didn’t begin to be generous when he decided to create us. In fact, we’re saying, according to Balthasar, that he is generosity in himself, even independently of us, of the idea of creating us. Generosity was part of what it meant for God to be God. Always!
Now there’s a lot that can be said about this. But let me try to be brief and to indicate how Balthasar explains this. So we’ve talked about the first cause as the fullness of existence who gives existence to everything else. Then we’ve wondered why would this fullness of existence bother to give existence to anything else. What’s the point? We said the point is generosity, gift. We said that this gift has a double aspect. The gift is not only that we exist, but also that we exist in order to be in communion with God. Then we’ve looked at the history in which God offers that gift to us. But now we’re talking about the Trinity and what we’re saying, at least what Balthasar says, is that if God exists, if the one God exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and if he exists like that always, and if he exists like that independently of us, independently even of the idea of creating us, then that means that he’s generosity in himself always.
So how does Balthasar explain that? He explains that in different ways. But one way that he likes to explain that is by thinking about the Father. Jesus always addressed the Father in the Gospel. He’s always speaking about himself as the Son relating to the Father. He has this very special relationship with the Father. It’s so special in fact that we can’t say that relationship began ever. It’s true that the Son appeared among us at a certain point in history, but he was there before that appearing. He was always there. That special relationship of the Father and the Son was always there. In fact, It’s not created. It’s not something that received existence from God. It’s inside of God from all eternity. There’s never a time when there wasn’t the Father and the Son together. Balthasar likes to think about the Father. He likes to reflect on the fact that there was never a time when the Father wasn’t being a Father. For Balthasar that means there was never a time when he wasn’t giving everything away to the Son. So think about that. The Father, Balthasar says, the first cause, he’s the one God. He is the fullness of existence. But for him to be the fullness of existence is simultaneously for Him to give the fullness of existence to the Son. So completely, so totally, so unreservedly that the Son too is the first cause and the fullness of existence.
As if that were not enough for the Father and the Son, to be the fullness of existence, to be the one God is for them to give the fullness of existence completely and unreservedly and totally to the Holy Spirit so that he too, is the one God, he too, is the fullness of existence. So do you see what Balthasar saying? He’s saying that if you could look into the heart of God, and the life of Jesus on earth is that window. What we would see is that what it means for the one God to be the one God and to be the fullness of being is to give the fullness of being, not only to give it, but to give identity with it, to give it so totally that the one who receives it, the Son, is also himself the same perfect absolute fullness of being. For them to give it together to the Holy Spirit, so that he too is the absolute fullness of the being. To be the fullness of being is to be generous, with the fullness of being to give all of it, and to give perfect identity with it. In this pattern, the Father to the Son and Father and Son to the Holy Spirit. God is generous in himself. In fact, he is generosity in himself already.
That’s what it means to say that the one God exists as three persons. Another way of putting it is in the First Letter of Saint John, it says God is love. Balthasar’s point is that doesn’t mean God loves us. It doesn’t mean God is loving. It means that in His very being, God is love. Why? Because to be the one God, to be the fullness of being is to share being, the fullness of being, and to share that absolute perfection is to love. I’m almost finished. Remember that I said at the beginning or near the beginning that Catholic theologians have tried to show two things. One is that the Trinity is not contradictory and and two, that it’s profoundly meaningful. I want to say something in conclusion about what Balthasar tells us concerning each of those two points. So it’s not contradictory, for the one God to be is for him to communicate his being so fully that the receiver himself is the one God. To be is to share being, to be the fullness of being is to share the fullness of being completely and totally. There’s no contradiction there.
Question 1: According to the Catechism of the Reformed church, the purpose of God’s creation is for His own glory. What would Balthasar say about the Reformed teaching of God’s purpose of the creation of human beings?
Question 2: Why is Existence itself is not a minimum, but a maximum? Why Existence, after all, is the greatest perfection?
Question 3: Can we say that Balthasar’s interpretation of the existence is not evolutionary, for every moment of existence is at its maximum and perfection.
Question 4: You just mentioned filial piety. Would you please talk about the “saintliness across the traditions”? According to Balthasar, is there any reflection?what did he think about it?
Question 5: Could you give some references or books’ titles about Balthasar’s trinity thougts? I am interesting in his discussion about giveness and generous and richness as eternal nature.
Question 6: In perspective of Balthasar, the relationship between unity and trinity is more like a dialectic or a synthesis?
Question 7: How can we communite with God? It is different type from three persons in fact.
Question 8: What is the relationship between perfection and richness?（同塵 老刀 整理）
