DOCSLIB.ORG

9780687355471.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
9780687355471.Pdf Readings in Christian Thought By Hugh T. Kerr Abingdon Press Copyright © 1990 Abingdon Press All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-687-35547-1 Contents I. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN THE EARLY CHURCH, 1. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), 2. Perpetua (c. 181-203), 3. Irenaeus (c. 130-202), 4. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220), 5. Origen (c. 185-254), 6. Augustine (354-430), 7. John of Damascus (c. 614—c. 749), 8. The Ecumenical Creeds, II. SCHOLASTICISM AND MYSTICISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 9. Anselm (1033-1109), 10. Abelard (1079-1142), 11. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), 12. Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), 13. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226), 14. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), 15. Duns Scotus (c. 1264-1308), 16. William Ockham (c. 1300-c. 1349), 17. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), 18. Julian of Norwich (1342-1423), 19. Thomas à Kempis (c. 1380-1471), III. REFORMATION AND POST-REFORMATION, 20. Martin Luther (1483-1546), 21. Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), 22. John Calvin (1509-1564), 23. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), 24. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), 25. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), 26. Menno Simons (1496-1561), 27. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-1647), 28. John Woolman (1720-1772), 29. John Wesley (1703-1791), 30. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), IV. CREATIVE RELIGIOUS IDEAS IN THE MODERN AGE, 31. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), 32. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), 33. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), 34. Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889), 35. Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), 36. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), 37. Fannie Barrier Williams (1855-1944), 38. Elizabeth Cody Stanton (1815-1902), 39. Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), 40. William James (1842-1910), 41. Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), 42. Ernest Troeltsch (1865-1923), 43. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), V. THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, 44. Sören Kierkegaard (1813-1855), 45. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), 46. Karl Barth (1886-1968), 47. Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), 48. Georgia Harkness (1891-1974), 49. Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), 50. Paul Tillich (1886-1965), 51. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), 52. Pope John XXIII (1882-1963), 53. Karl Rahner (1904-1984), 54. Thomas Merton (1915-1968), 55. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), VI. THE CONTEMPORARY QUEST, CHAPTER 1 ORTHODOXY and HERESY in the EARLY CHURCH It is both frustrating and fascinating to study the theological documents of the early period of the history of the Christian church. To the modern reader it is an era remote in time and place, and the issues which commanded most attention often seem obscure. Even the historical boundaries of the period are difficult to determine. Yet this was the formative age of organized Christianity, and it was during these first few centuries that the rudiments of Christian doctrine were formulated. Originally composed of a small band of Jewish disciples who proclaimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, the Christian church developed first within the limited confines of Palestine. For the most part, however, Jews rejected the Christian claim about Jesus, and henceforth the church moved farther and farther away from Palestine, spreading into the wider and more diverse world of Greco-Roman civilization. The books of the New Testament provide practically all the information we have about the history, doctrine, life, and organization of the earliest or Apostolic church. In the book of the Acts and in Paul's epistles, problems of doctrinal definition were already beginning to absorb the attention of the first Christians. The earliest missionaries of the church ("apostle" means in Greek "one sent forth") were confronted with two major challenges. These arose when Christianity became a self-conscious religious movement, defining itself over against other cultures, traditions, and religions. The first challenge was internal, even inherited, for the Christians had to determine whether they belonged within the Jewish religious tradition, or whether they represented an entirely new departure. The second challenge was posed by the Greco-Roman world of speculative philosophy and practical politics. The theologians and administrators in the early church period were mainly concerned with these two major challenges of culture and thought, and much of the writing in this period was addressed to the issues resulting from this confrontation. Both challenges were resisted; yet each shaped and molded the church's thought for centuries to come. Christianity did not remain a Jewish sect, though it retained the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the Bible, the New Testament books being regarded as fulfilling ancient history and prophecy. Nor did Christianity relinquish its unique interpretation of Jesus as the Christ, even though Greek philosophy demanded a kind of rational defense which Christian theologians were not always willing to utilize. The Roman political establishment forced the amorphous church to adopt administrative structures for its own institutional organization. Coming out of Judaism with a deep sense of divine calling as God's chosen people, coupled with a sensitive spirit for individual and social righteousness, early Christianity proclaimed a gospel of love and redemption without fear or favor to all who would listen. The appeal often came through rational discourse and argument; sometimes it was exemplified through mystical experience and ethical action; frequently it issued in a martyr's death. The period of the early church begins within or immediately follows the New Testament itself; but it is not so easy to say when the era ends or merges into the early Middle Ages. Surely Augustine (d. 430) was the last and the greatest of the early church theologians, but the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) pronounced a definitive judgment on the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, and therefore it very much belongs within this period. Even the Athanasian Creed, which summed up the disputes on the doctrine of the Trinity, falls within this early period, although the form in which it has come down to us is perhaps as late as the seventh or eighth century. Western, Latin, theology developed more rapidly than its Eastern, Greek, counterpart, and so John of Damascus (d. c. 750), the greatest of the Eastern Orthodox theologians, fits in the early church period because his views on Christ and the Trinity reflect the Augustinian-Athanasian pattern. So, somewhat arbitrarily as to the calendar, but accurate enough as to the development of Christian thought, we may stretch the period of the early church from post- Apostolic times, that is, after the New Testament, until the mid-eighth century A.D. Frustrating as this early church period may be in many ways, it is also a fascinating period of theological discussion and speculative dialectic. For five centuries and more, Christian thinkers sought to clarify how they understood the person of Jesus Christ. This task of definition required of them not only evangelistic zeal as they proclaimed the gospel to the faithful, but rational precision as they responded to the criticisms of opponents. What may astonish us as we look back at these controversial and confusing centuries is the highly sophisticated manner in which the early Christians argued with the best dialecticians of the day. In this verbal exchange, the record of which has been preserved for us in the voluminous writings of the early church thinkers, a serviceable technique for communicating the Christian faith was gradually devised. The word used to describe the theological technique of the earliest thinkers was "apology." The term was not understood in the sense of making an excuse or alibi, as though Christianity were something of which to be ashamed. The word reminded its hearers of Socrates' "defense" when on trial for his life, the graphic account of which Plato immortalized in the Dialogue known as the Apology. To make an "apology" for Christianity was to make a defense of it against those who denied its truth, reasonableness, or credibility. Those who wrote apologetic theology were known as apologists; they sought to vindicate Christian truth by demonstrating its intellectual as well as its religious and moral respectability. Three elements entered into the program of Christian apologetics: (1) a basic affirmation that Jesus Christ was the personification of God's truth; (2) a readiness to come to terms with and even appropriate the thought patterns of the particular people to whom the gospel was being presented; and (3) a rigorous dialectical debate in which the questions of the time were answered with doctrines of Christian faith. Since the Christian church in these formative years was eager to define its faith not only for itself but against its critics, the early church period is chiefly characterized as a time of controversy between orthodoxy and heresy. Orthodoxy (in Greek, "right opinion") was slowly and gradually achieved through the give-and-take of argument, scriptural interpretation, and the decisions of numerous ecumenical councils. Heresy was not always anti-Christian opinion but was often separated from orthodoxy by only a shade of meaning or emphasis. It was the contribution of the early thinkers to work out a definition of doctrinal orthodoxy which continued to serve as a norm for later theological discussion. The summary deposit of those definitions is contained in the great creeds and decrees of the earliest ecumenical councils. But the theology behind these formal decisions must be searched out in the writings of such thinkers as are represented in the following selections. It would be romantic and untrue to suggest that all the literature of this period deserves study or acclaim. Much of it is dull and uninteresting; not every thinker was a giant of faith or intellect; not all Christian apologists were of unimpeachable character; not everything written was in deathless prose. Mistakes were made, arguments were lost, words were wasted. The miracle of the early church is that so much was accomplished that endured.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WHAT IS TRINITY SUNDAY? Trinity Sunday Is the First Sunday After Pentecost in the Western Christian Liturgical Calendar, and Pentecost Sunday in Eastern Christianity
    The Blessed Trinity with Crown, by Max Fürst (1846–1917) Welcome to OUR 15th VIRTUAL GSP class! Trinity Sunday and the Triune God WHAT IS IT? WHY IS IT? Presented by Charles E.Dickson,Ph.D. First Sunday after Pentecost: Trinity Sunday Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS COLLECT? This collect, found in the first Book of Common Prayer, derives from a little sacramentary of votive Masses for the private devotion of priests prepared by Alcuin of York (c.735-804), a major contributor to the Carolingian Renaissance. It is similar to proper prefaces found in the 8th-century Gelasian and 10th- century Gregorian Sacramentaries. Gelasian Sacramentary WHAT IS TRINITY SUNDAY? Trinity Sunday is the first Sunday after Pentecost in the Western Christian liturgical calendar, and Pentecost Sunday in Eastern Christianity. It is eight weeks after Easter Sunday. The earliest possible date is 17 May and the latest possible date is 20 June. In 2021 it occurs on 30 May. One of the seven principal church year feasts (BCP, p. 15), Trinity Sunday celebrates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the three Persons of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “the one and equal glory” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “in Trinity of Persons and in Unity of Being” (BCP, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Jerome W. Berryman, Children and the Theologians
    Review Jerome W. Berryman, Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace (New York: Morehouse, 2009). 276 pages. $35. Reviewer: John Wall [email protected] Though the theological study of children has come a long way in recent years, it still occupies a sequestered realm within larger theological inquiry. While no church leader or theologian today can fail to consider issues of gender, race, ethnicity, or culture, the same cannot be said for age. Jerome Berryman’s Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace Journal of Childhood and Religion Volume 1 (2010) ©Sopher Press (contact [email protected]) Page 1 of 5 takes a major step toward including children in how the very basics of theology are done. This step is to show that both real children and ideas of childhood have consistently influenced thought and practice in one way or another throughout Christian history, and that they can and should do so in creative ways again today. Berryman, the famed inventor of the children’s spiritual practice of godly play, now extends his wisdom and experience concerning children into a deeply contemplative argument that children are sacramental “means of grace.” The great majority of Children and the Theologians is a patient guide through the lives and writings of at least twenty-five important historical theologians. The reader is led chapter by chapter through the gospels, early theology, Latin theology, the Reformation, early modernity, late modernity, and today. Each chapter opens with the discussion of a work or works of art. Theologians include those with better known ideas on children such as Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Karl Rahner; and some less often thought about in relation to children such as Irenaeus, Anselm, Richard Hooker, Blaise Pascal, and Rowan Williams.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Franciscan Doctrine of Christ
    Theological Studies 64 (2003) REVISITING THE FRANCISCAN DOCTRINE OF CHRIST ILIA DELIO, O.S.F. [Franciscan theologians posit an integral relation between Incarna- tion and Creation whereby the Incarnation is grounded in the Trin- ity of love. The primacy of Christ as the fundamental reason for the Incarnation underscores a theocentric understanding of Incarnation that widens the meaning of salvation and places it in a cosmic con- tent. The author explores the primacy of Christ both in its historical context and with a contemporary view toward ecology, world reli- gions, and extraterrestrial life, emphasizing the fullness of the mys- tery of Christ.] ARL RAHNER, in his remarkable essay “Christology within an Evolu- K tionary View of the World,” noted that the Scotistic doctrine of Christ has never been objected to by the Church’s magisterium,1 although one might add, it has never been embraced by the Church either. Accord- ing to this doctrine, the basic motive for the Incarnation was, in Rahner’s words, “not the blotting-out of sin but was already the goal of divine freedom even apart from any divine fore-knowledge of freely incurred guilt.”2 Although the doctrine came to full fruition in the writings of the late 13th-century philosopher/theologian John Duns Scotus, the origins of the doctrine in the West can be traced back at least to the 12th century and to the writings of Rupert of Deutz. THE PRIMACY OF CHRIST TRADITION The reason for the Incarnation occupied the minds of medieval thinkers, especially with the rise of Anselm of Canterbury and his satisfaction theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Rahner's Christian Pessimism: a Response to the Sorrow of Aids Paul G
    Theological Studies 58(1997) RAHNER'S CHRISTIAN PESSIMISM: A RESPONSE TO THE SORROW OF AIDS PAUL G. CROWLEY, S.J. [Editor's Note: The author suggests that the universal sorrow of AIDS stands as a metaphor for other forms of suffering and raises distinctive theological questions on the meaning of hope, God's involvement in evil, and how God's empathy can be ex­ perienced in the mystery of disease. As an expression of radical realism and hope, Rahner's theology helps us find in the sorrow of AIDS an opening into the mystery of God.] N ONE OF his novels, Nikos Kazantzakis describes St. Francis of As­ I sisi asking in prayer what more God might require of him. Francis has already restored San Damiano and given up everything else for God. Yet he is riddled with fear of contact with lepers. He confides to Brother Leo: "Even when Fm far away from them, just hearing the bells they wear to warn passers-by to keep their distance is enough to make me faint"1 God's response to Francis's prayer is precisely what he does not want: Francis is to face his fears and embrace the next leper he sees on the road. Soon he hears the dreaded clank of the leper's bell. Yet Francis moves through his fears, embraces the leper, and even kisses his wounds. Jerome Miller, in his phenomenology of suffering, describes the importance of this scene: Only when he embraced that leper, only when he kissed the very ulcers and stumps he had always found abhorrent, did he experience for the first time that joy which does not come from this world and which he would later identify with the joy of crucifixion itself...
    [Show full text]
  • Ventures in Existential Theology: the Wesleyan Quadrilateral And
    VENTURES IN EXISTENTIAL THEOLOGY: THE WESLEYAN QUADRILATERAL AND THE HEIDEGGERIAN LENSES OF JOHN MACQUARRIE, RUDOLF BULTMANN, PAUL TILLICH, AND KARL RAHNER by Hubert Woodson, III Bachelor of Arts in English, 2011 University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction, 2013 University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Master of Theological Studies, 2013 Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX Master of Arts in English, 2014 University of North Texas Denton, TX Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Brite Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology in History and Theology Fort Worth, TX May 2015 VENTURES IN EXISTENTIAL THEOLOGY: THE WESLEYAN QUADRILATERAL AND THE HEIDEGGERIAN LENSES OF JOHN MACQUARRIE, RUDOLF BULTMANN, PAUL TILLICH, AND KARL RAHNER APPROVED BY THESIS COMMITTEE: Dr. James O. Duke Thesis Director Dr. David J. Gouwens Reader Dr. Jeffrey Williams Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Dr. Joretta Marshall Dean WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish photocopy or reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Anselm-Bibliography 11
    SUPPLEMENTARY ANSELM-BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography is supplementary to the bibliographies contained in the following previous works of mine: J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972. _________. Anselm of Canterbury: Volume Four: Hermeneutical and Textual Problems in the Complete Treatises of St. Anselm. New York: Mellen Press, 1976. _________. A New, Interpretive Translation of St. Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion. Minneapolis: Banning Press, 1986. Abulafia, Anna S. “St Anselm and Those Outside the Church,” pp. 11-37 in David Loades and Katherine Walsh, editors, Faith and Identity: Christian Political Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Adams, Marilyn M. “Saint Anselm’s Theory of Truth,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, I, 2 (1990), 353-372. _________. “Fides Quaerens Intellectum: St. Anselm’s Method in Philosophical Theology,” Faith and Philosophy, 9 (October, 1992), 409-435. _________. “Praying the Proslogion: Anselm’s Theological Method,” pp. 13-39 in Thomas D. Senor, editor, The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. _________. “Satisfying Mercy: St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo Reconsidered,” The Modern Schoolman, 72 (January/March, 1995), 91-108. _________. “Elegant Necessity, Prayerful Disputation: Method in Cur Deus Homo,” pp. 367-396 in Paul Gilbert et al., editors, Cur Deus Homo. Rome: Prontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1999. _________. “Romancing the Good: God and the Self according to St. Anselm of Canterbury,” pp. 91-109 in Gareth B. Matthews, editor, The Augustinian Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. _________. “Re-reading De Grammatico or Anselm’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, XI (2000), 83-112.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Rahner's Metaphoric Logic Robert Masson Marquette University, [email protected]
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Theology Faculty Research and Publications Theology, Department of 1-1-2010 Interpreting Rahner's Metaphoric Logic Robert Masson Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. Theological Studies, Vol. 71, No. 2 (2010): 380-409. Permalink. © 2010 Theological Studies, Inc. Used with permission. Theological Studies 71 (2010) INTERPRETING RAHNER'S METAPHORIC LOGIC ROBERT MASSON Recent provocative reinterpretations of Karl Rahner's theology illustrate the hermeneutical challenge of retrieving his achievement for a new era. The spectrum of positions is exemplified by Karen Kilby, Patrick Burke, and Philip Endean. The essay proposes an alternative interpretive scheme attentive to Rahner's metaphoric logic. NEW GENERATION OF SCHOLARS is raising fundamental questions Aabout the balance, coherence, and foundations of Rahner's theology. They are bringing new questions and theological contexts to his thought and bringing Rahner's thought to bear on questions that had not been at the center of his attention—if on his horizon at all. While many of his former students and disciples have been content to explain and interpret Rahner in his own terms, this new generation seeks explanatory schemes that are not at all or much less dependent on his own conceptual framework and technical vocabulary. In critically engaging Rahner's texts, they take apparent discontinuities seriously while eschewing both overly generous harmonizations and unsympathetic caricatures. Their readings of Rahner illustrate the hermeneutical challenge of retrieving his achievement for a new theological era. The spectrum of reinterpretations is exemplified by Karen Kilby, Patrick Burke, and Philip Endean.1 Others could be cited, but these three illustrate ROBERT MASSON received his Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Rahner on the Soul
    Karl Rahner on the Soul Rev. Terrance W. Klein, S.T.D. Fordham University Karl Rahner rejects the notion that when Christians speak of a soul they are citing a surreptitious citizen of a realm that lies beyond or above science. For Rahner, the purpose of calling the soul the supernatural element of the human person is not to establish two spheres within one human being, but rather to attest to the sheer gratuity of our orientation toward God in Christ. When we use the word “spirit,” we philosophically reference our disposition over and against the world. When we use the word “soul,” we theologically assert the ultimate orientation of this spirit towards God. On Interpretation First, a word about interpretation, which is my task. One of the great Heidegger-inspired insights of twentieth century philosophy is that of the hermeneutical circle. Essentially the notion that we cannot simply seize the insights of another as though these were objects lying ready to hand. Rather, when we try to understand another, we become de facto interpreters, because we can’t help but approach the other in the light of our own preunderstanding. Hence, one cannot hope to approach a text without prejudice, which is always present. What one can do is to try to expose one’s own preunderstanding, so that, brought to light, its engagement with the text can be seen for what it is, a starting place in what is ultimately a conversation with the author. Gadamer taught us that what ultimately makes the conversation a fruitful dialogue, rather than a rapacious misreading, is a common tradition, the mutual questions and concerns that both the author and the interpreter share.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthopraxis and the Theologian Bernard J
    Theological Studies 49 (1988) ON DOING THE TRUTH: ORTHOPRAXIS AND THE THEOLOGIAN BERNARD J. VERKAMP Vincennes University, Vincennes, Ind. NE HOT spring day, some 15 years ago, I was sitting in my St. Louis O apartment working on an especially murky segment of the history of adiaphorism (the 1550 Vestiarian Dispute), when I heard sounds of an angry crowd congregating in front of the Saint Louis University ROTC building, which then stood directly across the street from my apartment. The evening before, I had taken time out from my studies to accompany some friends to an anti-Vietnam War rally on campus, and as the students' cries of protest now drifted up to my third-floor apartment, I was again distracted enough to drop what I was doing and go to the window. I got there just in time to see some 25 policemen emerging from the ROTC building and beating back some of the more aggressive protestors. Although I abhorred the violence that had earlier resulted in the burning down of the Washington University ROTC building across town, my sympathies were basically with the students, and as I watched their protest, I was strongly tempted to go down to the street and make a stand alongside them. But after cheering them on for a few moments from my window perch, I returned instead to my books and Bishop Hooper's rather obtuse line of argument against the wearing of a surplice. There were other occasions when I was not so successful in resisting the temptation to get involved in the current praxis or to take sides.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Rahner: Philosopher of Religion, Theologian and Spiritual Writer Johannes Herzgsell, S .J
    Karl Rahner: Philosopher of Religion, Theologian and Spiritual Writer JOHANNES HERZGSELL, S .J . Whoever begins to read Karl Rahner (1904-1984) may soon get the impression that he is always writing about the same thing. A closer reading can definitely confirm this impression. Although rahner pursued many very different theo- logical issues and problems over the years, it turns out that he was in fact always thinking about a certain fundamental approach to solving these various theological issues and problems. in the first part of this essay,i will try to elab- orate Rahner’s fundamental thinking and in the second part set out some of its most important applications in specific fields of theology. 1 . Karl Rahner’s Intellectual Approach Rahner’s intellectual approach brings together two ways of thinking that Rahner had initially developed and maintained independently of one another for some time. One is his philosophical approach, specifically his transcen- dental-anthropological thinking. The other is his theology of grace. i will first introduce these two approaches as well as their connection to Rahner’s theory about elevated and divinely grace-filled human transcendence. 1.1 Rahner’s Transcendental-Anthropological Philosophical Method Karl Rahner owes his transcendental-anthropological philosophical method in great part to Joseph Maréchal (1878-1944), a Belgian Jesuit 1. Already in 1927, at 23 years old, Rahner had in his Maréchal-Exzerpt summarized and translated an important work of Maréchal on the metaphysics of knowledge 2. From here on, he developed his method in his own early philosophical writings, especially in his rejected philosophical doctoral dissertation Geist in Welt of 1936,3 in his 1 Rahner himself attested that he was strongly impressed and influenced by Joseph Maréchal’s metaphysics of knowledge in an interview with Karl Lehmann .
    [Show full text]
  • Ignatian Prayer"
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/saintignatiusspe282veal i^n SIS ESS* HH 9k EffrMSWrn . 2vSSraT Zft&WM l(H dOC. .¥» t.V»* raffias HHT 4 u Saint Ignatius Speaks about "Ignatian Prayer" Joseph Veale, SJ. NEILL LIBRARY to t 28/2 MARCH 1996 ON COLLEGE THE SEMINAR ON JESUIT SPIRITUALITY A group of Jesuits appointed from their provinces in the United States. The Seminar studies topics pertaining to the spiritual doctrine and practice of Jesuits, especially American Jesuits, and communicates the results to the members of the provinces. This is done in the spirit of Vatican II's recom- mendation that religious institutes recapture the original inspiration of their founders and adapt it to the circumstances of modern times. The Seminar wel- comes reactions or comments in regard to the material that it publishes. The Seminar focuses its direct attention on the life and work of the Jesuits of the United States. The issues treated may be common also to Jesuits of other regions, to other priests, religious, and laity, to both men and women. Hence, the studies, while meant especially for American Jesuits, are not exclu- sively for them. Others who may find them helpful are cordially welcome to read them. CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE SEMINAR George M. Anderson, S.J., is associate editor of America, in New York, and writes regularly on social issues and the faith (1993). Peter D. Byrne, S.J., is rector and president of St. Michael's Institute of Philoso- phy and Letters at Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash. (1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Impassibility and Revelation: on the Relation Between Immanence And
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by VID:Open Impassibility and revelation: On the relation between immanence and economy in Orthodox and Lutheran thought Knut Alfsvåg, School of Mission and Theology, [email protected] Abstract What is the relation between divine unchangeability and the reality of change as implied in ideas of creation and redemption? Western Trinitarian theology in the 20th century tended toward emphasizing the significance of change above divine unchangeability, giving it a modalist and Hegelian flavour that questioned the continuity with the church fathers. For this reason, it has been criticized by Orthodox theologians like Vladimir Lossky and David Bentley Hart. Newer scholarship has shown the significance of Luther’s appropriation of the doctrine of divine unknowability and his insistence on the difference between revelation and divine essence for his understanding of the Trinity, which thus may appear to be much closer to the position of the Orthodox critics than to the Lutheran theologians criticized by them. There thus seems to be an unused potential in Luther’s doctrine of the Trinity that should be of interest both for systematic and ecumenical theology. Keywords Theology of the Trinity, Orthodox theology, Lutheran theology, Vladimir Lossky, David Bentley Hart, Martin Luther I. The problem One of the most basic and at the same time most challenging problems of the Christian doctrine of God is the question of the relation between divine unchangeability
    [Show full text]