Some positives about Radical Orthodoxy

I don’t want to be entirely critical of RO.  They helped me out on a number of issues.

  • Re-introduce the Patristics and Medievals.  While I am not as excited about St Thomas Aquinas as I used to be, I still enjoy reading him and reading Milbank’s reading of Aquinas.  Lot’s of good stuff on materiality and the Eucharist.
  • They highlighted my blind commitment to modernity, despite my hatred for modernity.  Here is a test-case to see how “modern” you really are.  Go pick up St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures on the Sacraments.  Does his reasoning and symbology bother you?  It should.  If it does, you are still a modern.  Of, if you are slightly wealthier (actually, if you are rolling in money), pick up Henri Cardinal de Lubac’s 4 volume Medieval Exegesis.  Frustrating reading, isn’t?  Why?  I admit, as much of a medievalist as I am, it still bothers me to read the four-fold exegesis.  This is good.

    The frustration one feels in reading the pre-moderns reveals growth.  We are slowly weaning away ourselves away from modernist hermeneutical commitments (and thus abandoning sola scholaria).  If you really want to pull out your hair, read the Venerable Bede.  Perhaps this is why the ancients said reading the Fathers was podvig.


2 Responses to “Some positives about Radical Orthodoxy”

  1. Or more importantly… read the Fathers in order to imitate their Faith as an imitation of Christ and His sacrificial Life, and not for content and abstract ideas in order to support our theological constructs and traditions of men. 😀


  2. Yeah, and that’s something I struggle with. But on the other side of the spectrum, some who hold (functionally) to a sola scholaria position probably don’t read the fathers for podvig, either. lol

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: