COURSE INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 2
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY..................................................................2
THE APPROACH TO THE HISTORY OF JESUS.......................................................................................6
AN OVERVIEW OF CHRISTOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 9
“THE PASCHAL TESTIMONY”................................................................................................................ 12
“THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH” (OBOEDITIO FIDEI)...............................................................................15
“THE ACT OF FAITH: ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS”.............................................................................20
THE ANALYSIS OF FAITH AND THE ACT OF FAITH.............................................................................22
A PHENOMENOLOGY OF A “THEORY OF RENUNCIATION”...............................................................23
REVELATION: THE “UNIVERSAL AND DEFINITIVE” WORD OF GOD.................................................25
“FIDES EX AUDITU”................................................................................................................................ 31
HOMO CAPAX DEI (MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD)................................................................................35
WHAT FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?..........................................................36
FUNDAMENTAL ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY............................................................................................. 40
FUNDAMENTAL ECCLESIOLOGY, PART II............................................................................................ 43
“PARADOX, MYSTERY, AND WITNESS”................................................................................................47
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND A BRIEF REPRISE...............................................................................50
ABOUT THE EXAM.................................................................................................................................. 52


Course Introduction
I. Fr Patsch began by quoting Schelling’s first lecture in Berlin, which indicates the importance of
the reciprocity between the professor and students:
A. “I greet you affectionately... The teacher knows many things, but without students he cannot
do anything. I am nothing without you, without your benevolent support...” (Quote from
Schelling “Erse Vorlesung in Berlin. 15 November 1841”, in Schelling's Sammtliche Werke.
Hrg. K.F.A.)
B. He also noted that, as a Hungarian, his theological point of view is European, but he hopes
that we will be able to achieve a genuine “fusion of horizons” (Gadamer) in the exceptional
classroom situation in which we find ourselves. In particular, he is interested in a dialogical
approach: ask questions, participate in the online forum.
II. The exam is available in English, Italian, French, German, and Hungarian.
III. The basic text for the course is the manual of Salvador Pie'-Ninot, the former teacher of this
class: La Teologia Fondamentale, Queriniana, Brescia 2010. (Queriniana, 2010, #121 in the
series). It contains 10 theses, which you will find, almost without modification, on the website
for this course.
IV. He will inform us as we go along as to reading assignments. He intends to use the first 5-10
minutes of the second hour to respond to questions and the last 5-10 minutes to consider items
from the online forum. Currently, there are no recommended English sources.
V. (Review of the course objectives stated on the syllabus)

Historical Evolution of Fundamental Theology
I. 1 Peter 3:15 provides the Magna Carta of fundamental theology, as well as its task: “Be ready
at all times to give a reason for the hope that is in you to whoever asks.” This has been the
task of all Christians from Justin Martyr to St Augustine to St Anselm to Blessed John Henry
Newman, and to us in our own day, even to the point of martyrdom if necessary. There is a
weight, therefore, to fundamental theology.
II. Historical Overview
A. New Testament: The Biblical books are writings of a pastoral character, written to
communities of believers. They are not properly apologetic.
1. The writings of the New Testament are principally pastoral in character, addressed to a
community of faith rather than attempting apologetics (for the most part). At the same
time, we see some of the foundations of this discipline already present: in dialogue with
Jews and pagans, Christians needed to defend their own beliefs. The earliest
approaches appealed to fulfilled prophecies and miracles, and we see this reflected, e.g.
in Luke (explains his goal in writing an account) and Acts (Stephen and Paul in
preaching). This approach provided reassurance to Christians that their faith was well
2. Patristic Age: The apologetic writings became the principle form of Christian literature:
Justin, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Augustine. Each of these wrote in defense of the
faith. With Clement and Origen, apologetic writing reached new heights of refinement
and development.
B. Patristic Age:
1. The apologetic writings became the principle form of Christian literature: Justin,
Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Augustine. Each of these wrote in defense of the faith. With
Clement and Origen, apologetic writing reached new heights of refinement and
C. The Middle Ages
1. At this time, there was a change of paradigm: the culture itself had become Christian. As
Tarnas describes it in The Passion of the Western Mind.


a. “Viewing now in retrospect the Roman Catholic Church at the height of its glory in
the Middle Ages—with virtually all of Europe Catholic, with the entire calendar of
human history now numerically centered on the birth of Christ, with the Roman
pontiff regnant over the spiritual and often the temporal as well, with the masses of
the faithful permeated with Christian piety, with the magnificent Gothic cathedrals,
the monasteries and abbeys, the scribes and scholars, the thousands of priests,
monks, and nuns, the widespread care for the sick and the poor, the sacramental
rituals, the great feast days with their processions and festivals, the glorious religious
art and Gregorian chant, the morality and miracle plays, the universality of the Latin
language in liturgy and scholarship, the omnipresence of the Church and Christian
religiosity in every sphere of human activity—all this can hardly fail to elicit a certain
admiration for the magnitude of the Church’s success in establishing a universal
Christian cultural matrix and fulfilling its earthly mission. And whatever Christianity’s
actual metaphysical validity, the living continuity of Western civilized culture itself
owed its existence to the vitality and pervasiveness of the Christian Church
throughout medieval Europe.”
b. “But perhaps above all, we must be wary of projecting modern secular standards of
judgment back onto the world view of an earlier era. The historical record suggests
that for medieval Christians, the basic tenets of their faith were not abstract beliefs
compelled by ecclesiastical authority but rather the very substance of their
experience. The workings of God or the devil or the Virgin Mary, the states of sin and
salvation, the expectation of the Kingdom of Heaven—these were living principles
that effectively underlay and motivated the Christian’s world. We must assume that
the medieval experience of a specifically Christian reality was as tangible and self-
evident as, say, the archaic Greek experience of a mythological reality with its gods
and goddesses, or the modern experience of an impersonal and material objective
reality fully distinct from a private subjective psyche...” (Richard Tarnas, The Passion
of the Western Mind, pp. 169-170)
2. With regards to fundamental theology, there was an additional task, exhibited
particularly by St John Damascene, Nicholas Cusano, and St Thomas’ Summa contra
gentiles: to respond to Islam, especially in Spain.
D. The Modern Period
1. The next phase, symbolized by the brooding statue of Giordano Bruno in the Campo de’
Fiori, comes from yet another cultural shift to the modern period, characterized by a
spirit of radical criticism. Savonarola is an emblematic figure of a cultural-theological-
philosophical clash. He was condemned for a theological heresy, but to describe this
period further, we'll read further, in Tarnas’ words:
a. “And so between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, the West saw the
emergence of a newly self-conscious and autonomous human being—curious about
the world, confident in his own judgments, skeptical of orthodoxies, rebellious
against authority, responsible for his own beliefs and actions, enamored of the
classical past but even more committed to a greater future, proud of his humanity,
conscious of his distinctness from nature, aware of his artistic powers as an
individual creator, assured of his intellectual capacity to comprehend and control
nature, and altogether less dependent on an omnipotent God. This emergence of the
modern mind, rooted in the rebellion against the medieval Church and the ancient
authorities, and yet dependent upon and developing from both of these matrices,
took the three distinct and dialectically related forms of the Renaissance, the
Reformation, and the Scientific Revolution. These collectively ended the cultural
hegemony of the Catholic Church in Europe and established the more individualistic,
skeptical, and secular spirit of the modern age. Out of that profound cultural


transformation, science emerged as the West’s new faith” (Richard Tarnas, The
Passion of the Western Mind, pg. 282).
b. As summarized by Fr. Patsch: “a new man arose, who looked at the world with
curiosity, suspect of orthodoxy, admired classical cultures, but above all aimed at the
future... aware of the creative force of the artist as an individual. Man began to feel
more and more like an omnipotent deity. Modern culture was born in a severe
criticism of the Church. Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the
Enlightenment were definitive for the relationship of the Church with European
culture, and they defined the individualism of European culture.”(Richard Tarnas,
The Passion of the Western Mind)
2. The Enlightenment
a. This period was ushered in by figures such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot,
d'Holbach- Fichte, Schelling, Kant. Key words include progress, liberty,
atheism/agnosticism, deism, rationalism.
b. The Enlightenment has as its project the liberation of mankind from ignorance and
inherited prejudice. Kant says,
i. “Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage s man's
inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-
incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of
resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
‘Have courage to use your own reason!’- that is the motto of enlightenment.”
c. We often assume that we know this history, but do we really know it? Against whom,
for example, was the Enlightenment? The project of the Enlightenment was about
liberating mankind from ignorance and inherited prejudice. To liberate man from
prejudice and ignorance, it was understood as necessary to free man from tradition,
which is essentially the Church herself.
3. The Response to the Modern Period
a. In response, Christian thinkers began to found a new discipline of modern
apologetics, with two distinct schools emerging led by two figures:
i. The first was associated with the German city of Tübingen
1. J.S. Drey (1777-1853) German
2. Apologetic works aimed at providing a “scientific demonstration of the divinity
of Christianity”.
ii. The other school, commonly called the “Roman school” and associated with the
1. Was inspired by the work of Perrone (1794-1876) in his Praelectiones
Theologicae. He taught at the Roman College in collaboration with the
4. In general, the Enlightenment caused a complete divorce of faith and science (scientiam
inter ac fidem complevit divortium), but as is often the case, a strong reaction against
something is often characterized by the same problem (such as feminism vs. anti-
feminism)—antinomies are often based on the same basic epistemological problem.
Thus, these responses to rationalism themselves tended to have a rationalistic
5. Fr. Pratsch made an additional two points not specifically related:
a. Modernity has limits and disadvantages.
b. We live at the end of this age, if not already in the “post-modern” age.
E. Vatican I
1. In one sense, the council fathers remained prisoners of the same rationalism of the
Enlightenment epoch in which they lived. This is important.
2. At the First Vatican Council, Dei Filius affirmed the possibility of knowing God’s
existence with certainty using purely natural reason.


3. The apologetic approach resulting from this involved a three-fold customary apologetic
(“classical” or “traditional” apologetics) to demonstrate:
a. The existence of God (against atheists) (demonstratio religiosa)
b. The existence of the true religion (against other religions) (demonstratio Christiana)
c. The existence of the true Church (against Protestants) (demonstratio Catholica).
4. Clear in principle, this method in practice had an extrinsic character, tending to produce
a “two-tier” pattern of thought which saw revelation purely as something added almost
optionally on top of natural reason, with the result that one might say “I just don’t need
that last addition” in rejecting revelation. In locating its authentic identity in opposition to
rationalism, this approach became in a sense a prisoner of rationalism.
F. Vatican II
1. At Vatican II, Dei Verbum, the dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation, again treated
the relationship of faith and reason.
2. We should first note its fidelity to Vatican I: it affirms reason’s ability to know God, and it
speaks of an obedience of faith (indeed, an obedience which is faith) that implicates
both a capacity and an obligation. In contrast to Vatican I, however, Dei Verbum re-
orders things: revelation has primacy, with the knowledge of God through revelation
being placed in first place. Thus, to summarize, the Council returns to the Biblical
expression of “the obedience of faith.”
3. At the same time, the council changes the order: it places in the first place revelation,
which is the true & proper place. Because to separate the two, beginning as we used to
with “natural theology”, makes it seem like revelation is something merely added on as
extra. This was the danger of the two-level theology, as it allowed modern man to think,
“I myself don't have need of anything extra, of any supernatural revelation.”
G. Post-conciliar Era
1. Following the council, in the years 1965-79, we can observe the long transition from the
language of Dei Verbum to that of the encyclical Sapientia Christiana, the first
magisterial use of the term “fundamental theology.” Therefore, it is very interesting to
note that the council never used the words “Fundamental theology.” In the development
of the discipline in this period, we can observe five trends:
a. The continuance of classical apologetics, a more defensive approach which provides
a strong sense of identity and is now particularly associated with Spanish
b. The development of dogmatic theological approaches to revelation, which took
inspiration from Karl Barth and whose exponents in Catholic circles were Latourelle
and Fisichella (both associated with the Gregorian)
c. The immanent approach to apologetics, seen earlier in the thought of Maurice
Blondel and which had questioned the utility of the classical approach
d. An approach which sought to provide a Christian anthropology of man as a “large
ear” open to hearing the Word of God and thereby analyzing the conditions of the
possibility of this listening. We are fundamentally ordered toward a revelation from
the Infinite; we are “hearers of the Word.”
e. The beginnings of practical fundamental theology
2. The years 1980-98 saw the development of two major schools of fundamental theology:
one associated with the Gregorian (again, Latourelle, Fisichella), and another German
school connected especially with Freiburg and Tübingen (whose most famous exponent
is Max Seckler). The fundamental theology of these schools involved two general points
of reference:
a. Attention to the credibility of Christianity
b. A monstratio religiosa/Christiana/Catholica.
i. Note the use of mostratio rather than demonstration: the objective is not to prove
everything about the faith at every cost but rather to show forth the intelligibility

(Fr Patsch sees this last point as the specialty of fundamental theology at the Gregorian. They marry. historical. and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. they beget children. nor employ a peculiar form of speech. but simply as sojourners. To justify and explicate the relation between faith and philosophical reflection (giustificare) c. There has always been theological pluralism. food. but not a common bed. The middle ages (Constantine forward). and 3. They are in the flesh. inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities. . who went to China and spoke and converted the peoples. To give reasons for faith (rendere ragione) b.” He also cites the famous Epistle to Diognetus. for example. . e anthropologica per poter così rendere ragione all fede .] As John 20:31 puts it. For they neither inhabit cities of their own. This is an important methodological change given the current environment of strong and unavoidable religious pluralism. nor the customs which they observe. but this is a new phase. They have a common table. Class Summary A.” B. The Enlightenment and afterward. This not because we are incapable: it is a much more profound . nor language. and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing. because we are living in a world context in our epoch. As citizens. but they do not destroy their offspring. The International Congress of Fundamental Theology was held at the Gregorian in 1995. but they do not live after the flesh. according as the lot of each of them has determined. and we can't speak as did the first Jesuits. nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. Another recent turning point in fundamental theology was in 1998 with the encyclical Fides et Ratio. Fr Patsch proposes a synthetic description of fundamental theology: “grounding and justifying Christian revelation as reasonably proposed with theological. It points out three specific tasks: a. Every foreign land is to them as their native country. 3. This quotation shows the challenge of talking about our faith in a situation marked by pluralism. they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. we can't speak as we once did. C. but they are citizens of heaven. and the rest of their ordinary conduct. To summarize our discussion. the pluralism of our contemporary world is characterized by a global society which is qualitatively new that requires us to rethink deeply how we discuss our faith. But. we are in a much different global context. We thus see a different comportment that seeks genuine dialogue with other points of view rather than simply speaking into an empty void. 5 and beauty of what we believe. They dwell in their own countries. in dialogue with those of other religions and even with those of no religion. . which in #67 gives a full description of the subject. ii. storica.. and yet endure all things as if foreigners. 4. which is perhaps the first Christian apologetic work: “For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country.) III. We are recognizing now the possibility and seeking the way of living together. they share in all things with others. 2.’” [Fondare e giustificare la rivelazione Cristiana come proposta sensate di credibilità teologica. The primitive Church.. This pluralism is qualitatively different than in past times. To study revelation and its credibility. It may not be wrong to say that there are 3 periods of Church history: 1. “these things have been written that you may believe and believing have life in his name. Today. Why the change? Because in this time of pluralism. as do all [others]. Indeed. They pass their days on earth. and anthropological credibility in order to be able to ‘give a reason for the hope within us.

Dei Verbum 19 and Sancta Mater Ecclesia of 1964). we should show the content of our faith by incarnating it in our own lives. Traditional hermeneutics is simply “the art and theory of interpretation”. the dominant criterion for the quality of a historian was his intelligence. D. the mediator (interpreter!) of Zeus towards humans. II. we find: i. Watch the video of the debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell on whether religion has been a net positive force in history. etc. Context is important. Geschichte. the “flow” of history in which we ourselves are immersed. C. or more negatively. which focuses on concrete calendar events ii. C. Note carefully that one’s questions have a major influence on answers. Turning to the German. 2. which takes seriously the fact that we are beings historically conditioned by our cultural and linguistic contexts and works from a methodology which is “historically conscious” (geschichtliches Bewußtsein). Hermeneutic Presuppositions of an Event A. 3. The memoria Iesu can be seen as a basic aspect of fundamental theology—fundamental Christology. We have seen the evolution of an antinomy or divorce between faith and reason. Anthony (hearing “sell everything” at Mass and doing so quite literally”. explain. Helpful to distinguish what we mean by history.g. the burning of putative witches. but it must be conserved in a very relaxed way. rooted in the rationalism of the Enlightenment. we run the risk of remaining trapped in the same conceptual scheme. Texts as such. I Peter 3:15: “always be ready to give a reason for the hope within you. even the Gospel texts. 26 Feb 2014 The Approach to the History of Jesus [Note: many points in today’s lecture correspond to #6 on the course program. a. This approach takes into account the historicity of the historian: in years past. This necessarily involves an understanding of the context of the modern day. translate) and is well- illustrated by the image of the Greek deity Hermes. The hermeneutical circle: . 3. The “Memoria Iesu” A. “the art of posing questions”. and in which we interpret the past. but we would now also want to consider the quality of his perspective on history in evaluating him. b. can be very “dangerous” in themselves. Henri de Lubac: “the word par excellence is Christ. but the word takes on a special sense when understood philosophically: a dialogical approach to philosophy.” Similarly.] I. the substantial Word who is at the same time the Messenger and the content of the message. The word originates from the Greek hermeneuein (express. St. B. B. 1. Philosophical hermeneutics is a self-reflective application of our own being-conditioned.” We might note that “hope” here includes both faith (its contents) and love (the corresponding way of life). as did Vatican I. and comment on the forum as to what you would have said differently. When there are two concepts considered mutually opposed. the massacres of Jews. We must seek not to abandon this missionary impulse. Historie. which is much more comfortable living with others. 2. 1. One apparently innocent word can provoke an immense change in the reader. e. 6 change. The philosophical concept at play in considering our context is “historicity” (cf. in that a question as posed structures in a certain way the response. Overcoming this risk requires one to rise to a higher level.

C. This period of research was terminated by Albert Schweitzer with his “History of the Research on Jesus’ Life”. Important exponents include Wright and Sanders. In order to account for historicity in this research. answers]—Being-in-the- world always considers the world with certain pre-structures. which is the source of the event of Christ. who is then spoken of in the kerygma of the Church. a. This criterion applies to all historical studies. The “1st Quest” (1778-1906) begun by Lessing and Reimarus. From the Criteria of Authenticity to Jesus of Nazareth. the back-and-forth between our pre-understanding [i.e.g. IV. On Heidegger’s analysis (cf Being and Time. 2000). section 32). and the consideration re- structures it. Towards a Contemporary Proposal of Criteria of Authenticity of the Gospel Accounts A. E. The “Christ of faith” was separated strongly from the “Jesus of history”. which for him was synonymous with credulity. The Historical-Hermeneutic Research into Jesus of Nazareth A. Reading the Gospels as merely transmitting “brute facts” was seen as shallow—the new question was how the Geschichte set in the Historie of Jesus can became anew Geschichte for us. the Source of Christology A. but this was an error. We might summarize the relevant history thus: it begins with the mystery of the Trinity. but this “circle” doesn't have to be a vicious one. 1. B.e. represented especially by Käsemann. the Enlightenment based itself on rejecting all prejudice as unfounded and illegitimate—but this itself was a prejudice! III. We briefly considered several cinematic depictions of Jesus (notably the “Jesus of Montreal”. 3. We have to look at reality from within historical reality. we will need a hermeneutical approach. which then passes on the apostolic teaching via Scripture and Tradition. accounts of him as a miracle worker. which Fr Patsch quite enjoyed). which often argued for an Enlightenment-type “natural” religion as opposed to the faith of the Church. . 317). Jesus being baptized by John.g. who took inspiration from the Historie/Geschichte distinction. Multiple attestation (e. Ecclesial embarrassment: if the records preserve something which would have been embarrassing to the early Church (e. the accounts of him calling the disciples). why have you forsaken me?”). Dionysius the Lesser in 525 attempted to calculate the date of Jesus’ birth and placed it at 754 from the founding of Rome. First general criterion of authenticity: historical plausibility and the coherence of the figure of Jesus. which became 1 AD. Derived criteria of authenticity 1. questions] and understanding [i. 7 1. with historical-sociological interests. it is more likely authentic—why would the Church have made it up? (Less important) V. The modern investigation into the “historical Jesus” comprises three basic stages: B. F. The day of Jesus’ birth. To take an example from Hans- Georg Gadamer (Truth and Method. the words of “My God. The “New Quest” (1953-85). Dissimilarity with the cultural context (i. This project considers Jesus in the context of Judaism and his creation of a reform movement within Judaism. what is clearly a move away from the position of contemporary Judaism) 2. The “Third Quest” (1985-c. D. but this was concluded with a caution that these depictions are not generally based on deep scholarship but more artistic concerns. Jesus’ pity and kindness. The “Not a Quest” period of 1921-53. we cannot escape from it. The Jesus Seminars occur in this context.e. in which Rudolph Bultmann and his disciples (especially Käsemann) tended to read everything in the Scriptures which was not credible from our perspective as a myth. which showed that much of this research was a projection of the researchers’ own perspectives onto history. This project aims at developing a historical image of Jesus.

Gospels are in many respects works of art rather than works of Enlightenment history. C. 3. 2. Was proclaimed as risen. B. Jesus: 1. Was a Nazarean 2. 15 Nisan d. The general consensus puts Jesus’ birth somewhere from 7 to 4 BC. he affirms the presence of Christians in Rome under the emperor Nero. Had a critical relationship with the Temple 8. Recounts some of the first conflicts between Christians and their social environment. He at least describes the virtue and perfection of Christ. John puts the Last Supper on the day of preparation for the Passover c. In 64 Nero persecuted and tried the followers of this Christ. 8 b. Was known as a wonder-worker 6. and does ask whether he might have been the Messiah. Pliny the Younger (112 AD): in a letter to the Emperor. 4. 14 Nisan e. c. who claim that he rose from the dead. Non-Christian historical sources a. originally from Galilee and having a reputation as a miracle-worker. c. even apart from a perspective of faith 1. the Jews of Rome were arguing about the title of “Christ” 3. victorious over death and now alive . even if we do not consider the Gospel accounts. this Roman orator and historian writes 2 paragraphs mentioning Christ and the Christians. showing that our faith is not something unbelievable. Tacitus (around 115 AD): In his Annals. was tried by the Procurator Pontius Pilate during the principate of Tiberius. Was crucified under the title of “King of the Jews” 10. Jewish Histories. he makes a reference to the Christians and asks how to act toward Christians who refuse to venerate the emperor as a god. Had a special closeness with God. Synoptics have Crucifixion on Friday. Proclaimed the Kingdom of God 4. Suetonius (around 120 AD): Describes the expulsion of Jews from Rome as a result of the infighting between the Jews and the first Christians. D. but this was in 6 AD. Around 93-94 there were several communities of Christians that referred to Christ as God 5. Was baptized by John 3. Flavius Josephus (Jewish writer): 93. By the year 50. and should be appreciated as such. A certain “Jesus”. In the last. the governor of Syria. Given the evidence of non-Christian sources. Called disciples 5. List of historical points established from the Gospels taken together with these other sources. Contains some data that may have been added later by Christian editors. Slides). whom he called “Abba” 7. Luke cites the census under Quirinius. The Gospel accounts provide some difficulties—for example. b. d. which apparently was well-known by their contemporaries. though. Had a farewell supper with his disciples 9. He describes Christian practices and their high standard of moral conduct (cf. 2. John has Crucifixion on Friday. existing “to this day”. By 114 there was an investigation into the activity of these Christians who met each week on Sunday to praise Christ and eat a shared meal. Synoptics place Last Supper on the Passover b. Fr Patsch spoke of his experience of growing up under a Communist regime that propagandized against Christianity—these affirmations help us defend against such anti- Christian intellectualism. There is also a dating issue regarding the timing of the Last Supper and Crucifixion a. there are some almost undeniable data points. He describes the Christian communities.

one of the two schools in FT. In this lecture and the last. even though the Scriptures have an important role to play. but what did it symbolize for the ancient Romans 2000 years ago? Or for ancient Christians? Similarly. The teaching of the Church: magisterial documents 3. 9 11. Was followed by Nazarenes. Taken personally. a history. the other being the German school. Introduction A. as Heidegger noted. in which we are immersed. still-hidden possibilities. As Gadamer notes in Verita e metodo 325:“We pertain to history. A brief re-consideration of our approach A. Titles of Jesus: A crucified “Messiah”? 2. likely because of its ambivalence in the Jewish culture of his time. This is not an obstacle or a sin! It is. however. the condition of possibility for understanding any event. and linguistic conditions”. which had strong notions of a .g. III. we will make use of philosophical hermeneutics. for we mean the explication of its original. This repetition is important since.. To do so. e. As Henri de Lubac put it. which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. Thus. 5 March 2014 An Overview of Christology I. Scheme of the lecture: 1. we are taking an approach to the credibility of Christianity (the specialty of the Gregorian school of Fundamental Theology) which considers its historicity. The professor feels himself to be in the theological school of the Gregorian. which is “a way of thinking that gives attention to its own historical. very few of us likely are Catholic after a systematic investigation of every religion—our possibility of understanding comes from our belonging to a particular tradition. B. or “pre-judgments”. The prejudices of the individual are constitutive of his historic reality. This statement should not be radicalized but rather taken in a more moderate sense. who were later called Christians and formed the “Church” E. We concluded with an unfinished discussion of how we might reply to accusations that religion (in particular Christianity) has not been a net positive force in the world.. not the other way around. in fact. “Messiah/Christ” . Titles of Jesus Christ in the New Testament A.We should first note the historical reality of this title. and we can see Christianity as having expanded this circle of consideration to include all of humanity. Jesus himself distanced himself from the title (“tell no one”). The idea discussed was that of Francis Fukuyama. to say the same thing it is often necessary to use different words. 2. In particular. we must pay attention to our own prejudices. C. The above approach is necessary since there are no such things as “brute facts”—they must always be interpreted. as do the 1964 document “On the Historical Truth of the Gospels” and Dei Verbum 19. B. made famous by Peter’s confession and present throughout the biblical accounts as applying to Jesus. 1. B. we have been considering the mysterium Christi. it is somewhat inaccurate to refer to our faith as a “religion of the book” (as do Muslims). So long as we keep this in mind. the Coliseum is a symbol of ancient Roman culture. Interestingly. Protestants in the Reformation period. Anthropological research: “Philosophic Christology”? II. the New Testament (and particularly the Gospels) give us the basic elements of an implicit or “seed- form” Christology. To take an example: for us.. cultural. As the source of our most substantial historical information regarding Jesus. Saint Peter’s Basilica has meanings that are different for us than for. who saw personal loyalty as having expanded throughout history from family to tribe to nation to civilization.” We pertain to a story. To begin. Christianity is the only religion whose revelation was incarnated in a person. it is not a negative thing.

1:15). but Jesus’ resurrection ironically confirms the title and leads to a serious reinterpretation of it. a. is undeniable (Mark 14:36 is one of countless Gospel texts along these lines. frequently applied by Jesus to himself. In ancient times. only in the mystery of the Word incarnate does the mystery of man truly take on light. This provides us with the fundamental aspects we should keep in mind and will help the Church. to remain in dialogue with the world. resulting in the very special sense that we give it. Christ is the full revelation of what it is to be human a. “Son of man” . the King of the Jews”. The Christology of the Second Vatican Council: 1. The language in this case does not directly follow scholastic theology. and deeds. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled. the sacramentum universale salutis. an idea illustrated by the artistic representations of the Risen Christ on the Cross. but the affirmation can be seen in the light of Hebrews 4:15 (“like us in every way but sin”). “Son” . from a simple courtesy (given to a respected teacher) to a title of his supreme majesty. He worked with human hands. He thought with a human mind. Its meaning appears to develop through the life of Jesus and the apostles. The Council Fathers at Vatican II rejected the original schema prepared for the document on revelation. De Fontibus Revelationis. Looking at Gaudium et Spes 22 (a “supercharged chapter”). acted by human choice . C. Jesus’ life made it clear that his suffering and resurrection come together. The mystery of the incarnation: The council affirms that Christ is united in a certain way to every human. moving from a generic significance of an eschatological figure to a confession of his messianicity. they find their unity in Jesus. were used to show the reason for a criminal’s punishment. and indeed. The Church’s Teaching A. Basic points: D. In conclusion. “He Who is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. the Causa Poenae.” b. these signs. The term is used more explicitly after his death and resurrection— although the idea of a crucified Messiah seems like an oxymoron. C.Kyrie—this title also underwent an evolution in the lives of Jesus and his followers. Fides et Ratio 8: “In reality. “Abba”. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. B. and accepted instead De Revelatione Dei et Hominis in Iesu Christo Facta. Jesus’ crucifixion is a “scandal for the Jews and folly for the Gentiles”. 2. The sense of him having a special relationship and even an unbelievable closeness with God. Both are legitimate. we might consider the titulus of the Cross as giving us an interpretive key to these titles: “This is Jesus. Ratzinger and Rahner which eventually became Dei Verbum. the alternative schema prepared by Frs. derives from Daniel’s dream vision in Daniel 7. and Ratzinger. Fr Patsch recommends several commentaries on this document. This evolution occurred through an experience of his words. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. In general. we find an important synthesis of the conciliar Christology which combines elements of both. E. one might consider also Matthew 12:1-12.The Qumran documents attest to a variation of this (“Son of the Most High”) as a current phrase around the time of Jesus. with the parable of the murderous vine-dressers). There are two basic approaches to doing theology: ascending and descending. is Himself the perfect man. D. IV. “Lord” . acts. 10 political Messiah. by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. F. the life of Islam’s prophet is one of vindication and success. Sander. The recapitulation of the mystery of man in the mystery of Christ: GS 22. particularly those of Moeller.This term. and it contrasts radically with the founding stories of other religions—for example.

Father” E. We could make a similar argument for religion. ontological affirmation. In our course. . destroying death by His death. a Trinitarian perspective) in Christology. received "the first-fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. and mindful of the command of the Lord. the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. 6. which describes our High Priest “like us in all things but sin. Ratzinger.” This is a passage not often quoted. A Philosophical Christology? A. He blazed a trail. deceived by the Evil One. Through Christ and in Christ. 4. however. The professor tends not to accent this notion of sacrifice to much in preaching & teaching. like us in all things except sin. which will depend on the perspective one takes on the relationship between faith and reason: 1. Or there are some who. life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning. He has lavished life upon us so that. Alesiani (all in the sala di lettura). God's universal salvific will: LG 16. The council. Apart from His Gospel. For this reason. to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these. and it is a great one. Abba. Also. and if we follow it. B. “Such is the mystery of man. By suffering for us He not only provided us with an example for our imitation. 8:23) by which he becomes capable of discharging the new law of love. have become vain in their reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers. “As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. which is exterior. the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful.” 3. are exposed to final despair. Against this. so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God "loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal.” 5. Christ has risen. doesn't use this way of thinking. Recommended reading: Moeller. Irenaeus distinguishes between Imago. this paragraph makes a strong.” b. as seen by believers in the light of Christian revelation. we can cry out in the Spirit. In Him God reconciled us to Himself and among ourselves. In the background is Hebrews 4:15. Wherefore. serving the creature rather than the Creator. living and dying in this world without God. which is interior. we are called to preach the Gospel to every creature. the possibility of a sort of “philosophical Christology” presents itself. The centrality of the Paschal mystery as both means of our salvation and an archetype for us to follow a. they overwhelm us. The Trinitarian Synthesis: GS 22. “it is fitting/necessary to philosophize” (oportet philosophari).” b. He has truly been made one of us. Neo-positivism: the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. With that last sentence. Further reading: 1. to "preach the Gospel to every creature". 2:20). which has the effect of changing one’s perspective: this change is not scientifically measurable but it would seem strange to say that it is meaningless. from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us. “But often men. In our times. we might give an example of experiencing a great work of art. The importance of the Holy Spirit (and more generally. because it seems like it is a concept distant from the man of today. and similitudinem. 2. Born of the Virgin Mary. Sacramentum Salutis Universale GS 45. The Spirit is He Who helps discover in the concrete situations of life how to act: “The Christian man. V. what are the models of the relationship between philosophy and theology? In considering this material from the perspective of credibility. 11 and loved with a human heart. So. at the end of the document. we will have not only the ancient Greek philosophers but also a synthesis of an anthropological research. one often runs into the position that theological propositions have no real meaning (and thus are rationally inscrutable). In theology. as sons in the Son. there are some sections pertaining to this material in Lumen Gentium. Sander.

the promise of life to come. Nietzsche: against the Crucified 9. For example. Schelling: light of the pagans 8. it's been 5 years and I don't recall many things. . This sees in Christ the fulfillment of certain human experiences and expectations. C. F. God (and not death) as the human absolute. Collins. theological. 3. 3. and anthropological credibility of Jesus is a reasonable response to the question which is man himself. There is legitimate room for doubt. Contradiction: faith and reason conflict irreconcilably. What does a philosophical Christology look like? From one perspective. Jesus is the response to the questions posed by human nature and life itself: the revelation of absolute love. 12 2. 1. we might speak of a “Christian philosophy” (with Augustine and Anselm) that is the one true philosophy.] a. Appendix: Bibliography for the course (or at least for this part): [The majority of these are available in the library sala di lettura. Rousseau: rational Jesus 3. Schleiermacher: the virtuous Christ of religion 6. 2. The first way to see this illustrated is how Christ is seen as the absolute fulfillment of the love which we all seek in our relationships. Heidegger: the absence of Christ 10. there would not be the possibility of faith. this is Christology via anthropology. For Spinoza. Kant: the “good principle ideal” personified 5. Latourelle. the event which changed not only the attitudes of the disciples but enabled them to found the early Christian community. which is at the same time the object and motive of the credibility of faith in Christ.Heidegger G. and Feuerbach. Two distinct intellectual levels: can refer to each other but do not conflict.” D. let's review the 10 Commandments. Christ is: the great Enlightener. The core of this affirmation lies in the Resurrection. for if there were not the possibility of doubt. a. Hegel: The Verbum Crucis 7. Inseparable unity: from this perspective. I love/hate God. He reveals the complete parallelism between love of God and love of neighbor. Exponents of this position have included Tertullian and Luther on one side. Kant or Hegel would see religion as entirely within the ambit of philosophy. Important exponents include Aquinas and Rahner.” . 1. The second way considers our experience of death: our love of self and other recoils at death.” One way is. one hears “Help me father. This is our proposition. Alternatively. “How are your personal relationships?” We tend to fool ourselves thinking we're good at keeping the commandments. Patsch prefers rather. and Nietzsche on the other. In other words. Conclusion: the historical. we might see what different philosophers have seen in Christ: 1. “Ok. E. Lessing: pedagogical Jesus 4. “Faith that does not allow itself to question or doubt is not worthy of being faith. If I love/hate my neighbor. and thus Christianity absorbs philosophy entirely. either. Occasionally in the Sacrament of Confession. and in his resurrection.” But Fr. Marx. Enst Bloch: the “rebel for love. The third way is the hope for the future absolute: a type of natural eschatological expectation we find within ourselves. which seems to indicate a natural desire to live forever. This approach is the view commended by the Church and expressed by the dictum gratia supponit naturam. one side completely subsumes the other. (cf Matthew 25:31-46). but few would say that all of their personal relationships are in order. 4. 2.

This is an important question. This might seem strange from a logical standpoint: how can a belief be self-attesting? How is it not question-begging? 2. There was a turning-point that animated the Easter faith. then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain”) as both ground and content of faith. Dei Verbum 4: Christ brings revelation to perfect fulfillment “especially” with his death and resurrection. Pie-Ninot (former teacher of this course) d. but to learn to dwell in it as best as we can. B. whom you crucified. C. For Hindus. B.” (Dibelius. 1. though our assessments are always biased. “Something had to have happened that not only totally changed the disciples' behavior.” The social structure of today is today's structure of its plausibility.) and indicates a conviction that Jesus has re-awoken from the dead. has been raised. Our entry point into this circle is through the faith of the first disciples themselves. one of the most ancient “creeds” of Christianity. Examining Acts 2:32-36. E. but also made them capable of a renewed activity and of founding a community. C. We are not seeking here to demonstrate a necessity of having faith in Christ. Hermeneutic Presuppositions A. abandoned by even his closest friends. D. philosophers. never traveled more than a few hundred miles away from where he was born. that of his followers. This is the nucleus of their faith. Fisichella. The Resurrection has a peculiar epistemological status (cf.” How often do we consider how hard might be to accept our beliefs from another perspective? We must be aware of the background structures and motives of our Christian life and belief. “Who can change the world?” A. we note an unexpected aspect of the Resurrection—“this Jesus. 13 b. Thomas Berger & Thomas Luchman (sp?) speak of “structures of plausibility. The key to this paradox is the Paschal Mystery. no higher-level education. we see that the Resurrection highlights specifically the definitiveness of the redemption of human existence that God has accomplished in Jesus. Jesus is both object and motive of faith: a hermeneutical circle. Indeed. politicians. and so their original experience and interpretation cannot be eliminated from our consideration. Massimo Epis e. and our own. II. at least three intellectual horizons are involved in this interpretation: that of Jesus. but it is “folly to Greeks. In Rev 1:17 and following (“I am the first and the last…”). 1 Cor 15:14: “If Christ has not been raised. body and all. the only ones who were there. The life of Jesus (from a backwater province. Famous scientists. The point is not to escape the circle. Our intellectual horizon must fuse with theirs in order for us to interpret the event correctly. executed as a criminal) seems insignificant when measured against the sorts of people we typically think of in this category. Yet he is the central figure of a religion that shortly after his death began to exert a world-wide influence. But what does “especially” indicate? Von Balthasar says Christ’s death is fullness. etc. Latourelle & Fisichella. 1. others his Resurrection. the concept of the incarnation of the divine is an easy one. a point which is definitive and even constitutive of Christian belief. religious leaders. .” The phrase “Christ is risen” is found in many NT passages (1 Titus 4:15. No army has ever changed the world like he did. Society conditions those who live in it. La Rivelazione: evento e credibilita' c. 1 Cor 15. but rather we are considering how that faith is motivated. Dictionary of Fundamental Theology 12 March 2014 “The Paschal Testimony” I.

The origins of the “Paschal faith” in the disciples are shrouded in mystery by the later legends but the historical roots are not important. and appropriately so. without any connection with objective reality. The “Jesus Seminar” and its adherents see talk about the Resurrection as purely symbolic. which has not produced a unanimous opinion. Gonzalez-Gil. who did not want to admit of a miraculous raising of Jesus from the dead.” a. This explanation was favored by Paulus and Schleiermacher. Augustine’s striking phrase that “habet namquam fides oculos suos” (“faith has its own eyes”). the solution is to begin to love in a strong sense in one's practical life. The report of Jesus’ side having been pierced by a spear presents a difficulty for this explanation. it is practical. then lied about the resurrection. In summary. IV. ii. Others have affirmed the reality of the Resurrection (Leon-Durfour. and it is the most diverse i. iv. Based on this. i. This is the third and current stage. we find several distinct stages of research on Jesus’ Resurrection which line up with the intellectual presuppositions of the researchers.] 4. and that the presuppositions of the researchers on the subject. Jesus only apparently died—he perhaps fainted and then later recovered in the tomb. particularly in St. Was characterized by the historical-critical and rationalistic interpretations of Reimarus and his successors. This has roots in Mt 18:11-15. This does not get us any closer to an interpretation of the Resurrection. The “Third Paschal Quest. Paralleling the history of biblical research. based upon the unusual rapidity of Jesus’ death. we can see the importance of looking at the facts “with the eyes of faith” in order to arrive at the proper interpretation. since this is the essential point of our faith. Love is never a theoretic or spiritual thing. Looking with the Eyes of Faith A. The language of resurrection should be interpreted as meaning only “subjective visions of the disciples” after Jesus’ death rather than an objective resurrection event. Research on the Resurrection of Jesus A. or positions of life. Berten. [Fr Patsch named Haes. Rationalist. (Verweyen) ii. 3. . 14 Jesus. iii. ii. The disciples stole and hid Jesus’ body. The difficulty with this is explaining the change in the disciples afterwards. that’s the word] is a “sufficient reason” [explanation] of the Resurrection. C. we must now consider: what interpretation of the event is plausible? III. Bultmann and his followers were characterized by an epistemological skepticism aimed at the historical reliability of the Gospels. The “Not a Quest” (really a “non-stage”) a. With regards to the Resurrection. 1. several putative explanations became popular: i. in which the Pharisees are reported as having spread such a story. The “New Paschal Quest” a. This idea has roots in the patristic period. but gave no other details. Thus. Martini. psychogenic explanation: Disciples’ response and accounts a psychological response to a traumatic event. The solution which the professor has found in pastoral situations with people in crises of faith is to take the person seriously. The “First/Old Paschal Quest” (1778-1906) a.) B. Berlin 1939). If you are in crisis. and Durwell. The second actual stage of this research was the “New Paschal Quest” of the 1970s and 80s. have played a significant role in their perspective on it. Jesus’ “pro-existence” [yep. 2. the debate on the Resurrection has been very lively. which began from new hermeneutical directions. iii. etc. We can observe the difficulties of a directly historical approach to the Resurrection. brought on by their various sitz im leben.

liturgical (breaking of the bread) V. [Theory of relevance: Those who experience the Risen One often are a part of this movement. He explains to them that the Messiah must suffer (26-27) C'. Jesus vanishes from their sight (31b) A'. A change of subject [potentially related]: The charismatic & Pentecostal movement A. the concept was developed by Pierre Rousselot in his book The Eyes of Faith. It's too emotional: what happens after the emotions? . A key question which this text addresses is “how can he be living if you can’t see him?” which arose in the early Church and the explanation of which is that “only with the eyes of faith can he be seen”. A non-believer might ask: when I look out the window. Garigou-Lagrange and others of the pre-conciliar period attacked Rousselot's conception of the act of faith very strongly. As an example of this we can take Lk 24:13-35. 15 B. Jesus’ post- Resurrection appearances.] C. a response which combines both subjective and objective elements. [Theory of meta-relevance: dialogue regarding an important but sometimes divisive subject in order to get a sense of how deep the influence of our own context and presuppositions can run in assessing a matter of faith. interreligious (use of the prophets to explain Christ) f. Their eyes are opened and they recognize Him (31a) B'. The response to the question is “be converted and believe”. D. The starting point for this concept is that God has revealed himself not through purely internal experiences but rather through history. Rousselot's conception influenced DeLubac strongly. They relate the relevant facts to Jesus (17-19) E. spiritual-contemplative g. historical-critical d. The text itself has multiple interpretations: a. 1.. But their eyes are unable to recognize Him (16) D. the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. “Some women say that they found the tomb empty. depth psychology (interior consolation/illumination in distress) e. Parallel begins: Some from us went to the tomb and verified it. C. particularly in the breaking of bread.] B. 2. Note the chiastic structure of the passage: A. liberation theology (“we thought he would free Israel”) b. Jesus rebukes them for being slow of heart to believe (25) D'. in which he has given us many reasonable signs of himself: the empty tomb. the answer is everything. In the 20th century. 2. Criticisms (from students): the “faith” they express is sometimes vague and general. but the non-believer still sees from the same perspective and so cannot perceive the difference.. what do I see that has changed with the Resurrection? For the believer. “He was condemned and crucified” (20) F. feminist (suspicion of the women) c. but Him they did not see (24) E'. Faith provides the background structure of plausibility to understand and believe these signs. and say that He is 'the living' (Zen) (22) F'. the apparitions of angels. By the scriptures. They return to Jerusalem and tell the others. (32-35) 1. Jesus draws close and speaks with them (15) C. Introduction: disciples going from Jerusalem (13) B.

G. 19 March 2014 “The Obedience of Faith” (Oboeditio Fidei) [NB: Fr. Affirming the reality of Jesus’ resurrection presupposes: the possibility of God acting in history and leaving traces and signs that are historically reliable. and we are now moving back to cover 3. The Easter testimony of Peter (Acts 2:32) articulates a witness realized in faith of a reality which has taken place in history: Jesus has definitively triumphed over death and shown himself to be Messiah and Lord. The message: try not to get in the way of the movement. its facts are open to historical-critical investigation. magisterial affirmations to arrive at a synthesis. 3. As discussed last time. 9 million in North America. as shown by the angels in the tomb and Jesus’ own appearances to the disciples. 8. Patsch noted at the outset of the lecture that he is not going linearly through the theses we are treating in the course. and it was deeply rooted in the nascent Church. and in the NT it is interpreted through the Jewish categories and language of the time. The “signs” accessible to historical-critical study present a historically plausible overall picture which in turn points to the veracity of the Easter testimony. we can summarize much of this treatment with 10 theses [cf. the future of the Church. Defense (from students): it's about personal conversion to Jesus. 9. The commitment of the apostles makes the Easter faith trustworthy. We have done 6 through 8. The movement involves over 100 million people. other literature. .] I.2% if Christians lived in Europe (406 million). 6. particularly the radical transformation of the disciples. “Rise”. Statistics: see The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diveristy. the Resurrection has a unique status for Christians as both the object and the motive of our belief. which is the first requirement of those Jesus calls in the gospels. and that this possibility became real in Jesus of Nazareth as the first-born of all creation. but today only 25. many of them Catholics. E. Closing Remarks on the Resurrection A. F. and “being raised” are used also to describe the eschatological hope for the resurrection of the body. La Teologia Fondamentale¸pp. The objective facts and the Christian interpretation of them point to a historical event that asks for faith in the form of an active involvement in the implications of the event. 438 and following]: 1. this hope became reality. Demographic data: 32% of the world is Christian. 10. The Catholic Church is global. 16 D. 5. It is the most dynamic part of the Church. “re-awaken”. then considered faith: biblical definition of faith. The Easter witness is revealed by God. Pié-Ninot. 2. a je ne sais quoi that motivated their faith in Jesus’ Resurrection. and a glance at contemporary challenges. The Easter witness is rooted in the “eyes of faith” (oculata fide—“faithful gaze”)—faith makes us able to “see” the various historical events as signs of Jesus’ Resurrection. For today’s lecture. 66. we began with some closing remarks on the Resurrection. In closing. In 1910. The je ne sais quoi (of #3) is the historical core of the Easter faith is described in the New Testament as Jesus’ real and personal presence among us. Since the Resurrection took place in history. In Jesus. 7. In reflecting on the way in which Jesus’ resurrection makes the Christian faith credible and provides the greatest motive for faith. 4.9% of Christians do. fundamental theology attempts to show the connection of the Easter testimony with a series of verifiable signs in history that make our belief historically and anthropologically credible and thus worthy of faith. The apostolic witness is a necessary mediation for us to receive and accept the Easter testimony.

one could have faith in traditional marriage as a social institution while acknowledging other perspectives as having validity. This points to a religious sense of faith as a type of belief. whether we like it or not. For example. 2. “faith” has four basic meanings: 1. most of which emphasize the existential aspect of trust: II Chron 20:20. b. most Americans take it on faith that Australia exists. 4. the core of Christian existence can be expressed with the word “Credo”. A belief in something uncertain. there would be nothing for theology to reflect upon. a. Plato expressed this idea with a distinction between pistis and episteme. “What do you ask of the Church?” Reply: “Faith. For example. C. At this point. Moving towards a more religious sense of faith.” Theology. understanding follows after faith instead of coming before it. Fr Patsch summarizes all of this by noting that the Christian faith is fundamentally a drama. II Sam 22:2ff. The great model of faith is Abraham: on God’s word. but this reflection only makes sense if the faith is there in the first place. but “fiduciary faith”. 17 B. In everyday language. with the latter being scientifically certain knowledge and the former being dubious at best. A relationship of trust which leads to knowledge. B. and is in line with a tradition going back to St Cyril. non antecedit [i. we can observe the response to the question.] . 3. which had as their basic religious attitude a desire for connection with the cosmos and expressed this desire through specified rituals without a specific requirement for a belief system. c. an acceptance. In our liturgy. we consider 5 key biblical texts on faith in their Wirkungsgeschichte [here meaning “the history of their historical significance”]: 1. Ratzinger notes that faith in these senses is a basic part of the framework of human society —we all find ourselves placed into a world which requires us to trust others. is emphasized. Biblical Understanding of Faith A. Abraham is the “knight of faith”. II. An act of trust in another. We see this echoed in St Augustine’s 43 rd sermon. complete adherence to God.e. Ps 18. All four meanings of faith are present. There are numerous texts related to faith. III. a deficient form of knowledge. an oath of allegiance—in other words. St Anselm’s classic definition of theology also comes to mind. 3. we note that modern religions have two basic components: creed and cult. the scientia fidei. As Ratzinger notes in Introduction to Christianity. The Old Testament: 1. you will not understand” (Is 7:9). an existential affirmation. 2. The latter was predominant in ancient religions. An orientation in values or models. is necessarily based on the existential act of faith—without the elements of belief included in it. This explains why Barth refers to theology as a “function of the Church”: it is necessary for us to reflect upon our act of faith. Socrates expresses this sense in his reply to his conviction: “I have always honored the rites of the city”. Faith in a person. who clings to God in trust even when nothing makes sense. In Kierkegaard’s beautiful reflection. he left his home and even offered the promised child to God. The word here for “believe” comes from the same root as “Amen” and indicates a ratification. not a tragedy—Jesus’ resurrection provides us with a reasonable hope for a happy ending. “If you do not believe. who indicated a priority of faith: fidem sequitur cognitio. What is Faith? A. crede ut intellegas. D. B. which sees faith and understanding as two undivided realities: intellege ut credas. fides quaerens intellectum. This situation changed radically with Judaism and (later) Christianity.

it cannot simply be set aside. whereas later figures (Erasmus. In spite of the fact that this does not have a solid basis in the original Greek (which has logikan latreian. against the Enlightenment. Brush states: “In the NT. and many others) read it more as a subjective “steadfast trust”. argumentum) of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). This sounds to us rather authoritarian of the pope. This is not to say that philosophy has no autonomy at all—it certainly has its own particular intellectual tasks—but for Catholics much of its importance comes from Vatican I’s insistence that “the homage of faith is not a blind movement of the intellect”. even for intellectual purposes. An important text is Pius IX’s encyclical Qui pluribus (1846). 3. in a manner not yet seen. as Lumen Gentium proposes. The phrase reoccurs in Pius X’s Communium rerum. 8. 5. e. a. Reason certainly has the duty of helping our comprehension of the faith. There is also an echo of this in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. Zwingli. the proof (elenchos. 2. . “Faith/faithfulness/trustworthiness of Christ” (Gal 2:16 and Phil 3:9). this idea has been developed in the tradition through the concept of rationabile obsequium. which indicated that the primary task of philosophy is to show the reasonableness of the act of faith. The term elenchos has been interpreted as a “means of knowing” (not so much “proof” in a discursive sense). a. c. Art. We may ask ourselves why the theologians of a different error did not see the big-picture problem in their efforts. Piux X: Communium Rerum (1909). 18 d. as with great wisdom the apostle says. “Rational submission” (This phrase applied to faith comes from the Latin version of Rm 12:1). which was written against rationalism and which made use of this phrase to describe the reasonability of faith. because slavery was an ubiquitous reality. We can see in this an example of the way in which one’s language structures one world and a concrete case of the importance of dialogue with other perspectives. Augustine.” We're used to a more genteel approach that leaves a greater legitimate autonomy to the world. ratio fide illustrate (DH 3019) Philosophy can “prepare the way” for faith. Q.'” There is a great difference between the Latin and the Greek senses of rationabile obsequium. But the same might be said of us in 200 years. b. though it has also been interpreted as a subjective “absence of doubt”. Vatican I described how reason illuminated by faith can arrive at an understanding of revealed mystery. “Faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for. pisteuein stands. It refers to rationabile obsequium in the following way: “it's necessary that human reason attentively studies divine revelation. to be secure that God has spoken and to render it. The principle office of philosophy is to highlight “rational submission” (rationabile obsequium) of our faith (Rom 12:1). b. which has more the sense of “reasonable spiritual worship). there's a new development in which the group of terms pistos. to dictate the “principle office of philosophy. though we should note the impossibility of completely prescinding from our faith even when doing philosophy—if faith is a true existential attitude. He unwittingly assumes some of the same presuppositions of the Enlightenment in his efforts against it. From this tradition. Secunda Secundae. Pius IX here is speaking in the neoscholastic line. 4. which puts faith as the first priority for us. This is not to say that we are more intelligent than the fathers of the First Vatican Councils. Aquinas). ad 3: intellectual perception of many truths of faith is above the human intellect and requires grace. Solon could not have argued successfully against slavery in Athens. Luther. unknown at the center” (see slides). See how the line is blurred between philosophy and theology. The Catholic tradition has traditionally seen hypostasis here as signifying an objective “foundation” or “guarantee” (Chrysostom. 'ossequio secondo ragione.

a. ad 2: the reasons for our hope do not “prove” matters of faith and hope as such but rather show the probability of these things. DV 3 and 6 draw out the primacy of our knowledge of God through revelation over “natural knowledge” of Him. there was a genuine risk of some who gave a defense of their faith ending up in prison. Even so. This is reflected in the commentary on the passage in the Summa Theologica. Another classic point of reference is St. On the other. Fides qua creditur—faith as an formal act of the will toward God V. “Always be ready to give a defense [apologion] to anyone who asks for a reason [logos] for the hope within you” (I Pt 3:15). Supp. Do we speak of a faith as a “journey towards Christ” or a journey which “begins in Christ”? 5. which show its credibility and are adapted to human reason (and therefore every human). Q. On one side. This is a basic anthropological foundation of the Christian faith: we are created to desire and to receive God’s revelation. The first magisterial text to touch on this subject was from Trent. Cardenal. we can consider Lombard’s distinction in De Symbolis I. D. which was concerned primarily with the relationship of faith and justification: fides humanae salutis initium (“faith is the beginning of human salvation”). we find an “anthropological paradigm” which highlights the differences between the believer and Jesus (Rahner. Art. 3. 2). We can take logos here as a “giving an account of”. To begin sketching a synthesis of this material. O’Collins. IV. C. b. Vatican I. 1. we should not take “a reason for our hope” (logos) in an Enlightenment or rationalistic sense of proof. Dei Verbum 5 adds to Vatican I’s definition the phrase “obedience which is faith” to bring out the complete personal obligation in which faith consists. the “journey of faith” towards God. among others). faith here is seen as a way of obeying God with one’s intellect and will. which was very concerned with the relationship between faith and reason. 181. We follow here Pié-Ninot’s interpretation of these terms: 1. There is a significant on-going exegetical discussion over these words over whether they attribute an act of faith to Jesus. Art. 2. we have an obligation to use reason rightly. we nonetheless have the responsibility to reflect upon and present the revelation so as to show forth its credibility—since we believe that “right reason can demonstrate the foundations of the faith”. E. 1. Credere Deum—this draws out the specific cognitive content of faith. Credere Deo—this points to the formal motive by which one believes: a conviction of God’s trustworthiness. 2. 36. b. 19 a. Credere in Deum—this makes explicit the aspect of eschatological communion with God in faith. there is a contemporary movement to see Christ as a “paradigm of singularity” by affirming Christ’s faith (von Balthasar. From the inside we might note Christian divisions as a problem: there is a distinction between the institutional Church and the corpus mysticum Christi (in St Augustine’s . we should keep in mind that when they were written. Fides quae creditur—the objective content of faith 2. which is later echoed by St Thomas (ST II-II. There are a variety of contemporary challenges to faith. saw faith as “the full obedience of the intellect and the will to the God who reveals” ( plenum revelanti Deo intellectus et voluntatis obsequium). B. among others). Theological Debates and an Open Perspective A. Although we might take these words as a given. a well-considered motive for belief. 2. Magisterial Affirmations and a Theological Synthesis A. Thus. Augustine’s distinction between: 1. See Lumen Gentium 10 and Fides et Ratio 67 for more recent commentary on this point. The council also noted the “external signs” of revelation. Q. In other words. 2.

” 6. B. S. There is a sense in some circles that religion has become unnecessary. Speaking of a “god” is a philosophical presupposition. 8. and all scientists who take positions here do so as philosophers. “many who are within are actually without. “And what is the turtle standing on?” “Ahhh . Georges Lemaître. He gives several quotes referring to the “cosmic religion” and “religious sentiment”. but could refer to a Spinozian deity. understood as admiration for the structure of the world. Francis' famed “Canticle of the Sun” which praises the matter which gives us an intimation of the grandeur and “dimensions” of God and should be taken poetically rather than in a literal-theological sense. the younger monk was told that it stands on the shell of a giant turtle.J. 3. in a notable essay on science and religion. though Fr Patsch finds Rahner’s notion of “anonymous Christians” as less than helpful here. 2. advocated a point of view which saw theology and evolution as being in harmony. . and many without are within”). On the other hand. Fr. and the general cultural environment of today sees only scientific truth as reliable—hence Hume’s advice (Dialogues concerning natural religion) to cast all books on religion and philosophy “into the flames”. C. was a Catholic priest and represents a position which sees science as having philosophical and theological presuppositions. Patsch ended with an interrupted consideration of Einstein’s religious views. “science without religion is lame. 1935): The scientific mindset is prudent. as its point of departure and object are completely distinct from those of theology. More recently. Fr Patsch sees 2 principal contemporary challenges: positivism and the experience of suffering. Thus. we can argue that any tension between science and faith has been resolved at a high level. Natural science must be methodologically atheistic. empiricism (Hume) and positivism (Bertrand Russell) have defended the superiority of science over religion and advocated a complete freedom of research. 5. it's worthless. His merit was to help the Church slowly accept evolution. an intelligence that is behind the intelligibility and beauty of creation and mathematics.” (Fantasy author Terry Pratchett would later conclude that the answer is “turtles all the way down. . An old Buddhist story for illustration: a young monk asked an older one what the foundation of the world might be and was told that the world sits on the back of an elephant. On his view. argued that the two cannot even in principle come into conflict. Karl Rahner. God is not a part of the world. Albert Einstein’s religious views hint at a situation more complex than it seems at first glance: he wrote of a “cosmic religion” which doesn't necessarily refer to a personal creator in the Christian sense. Upon inquiring what this elephant stood on. a paleontologist. 7. but faith often seems to be in tension with it. the quintessential man of science and the modern world. a condition of its existence. We might also note contemporary brain research. and religion without science is blind.”) 2. the originator of the “Big Bang theory”. . Theology and Natural Science: an opposition? 1. As Hume said “if a book contains neither numerical abstract reasoning nor experimental research. experimental. In recent centuries. we do not ask that question. but its foundation. There is a human impulse to investigate the order of the cosmos in which we live.” 4. It does not pretend to know the whole truth. as indicated by the figure of Galileo and the numerous contemporary debates between prominent exponents of religion and science. which John Paul II called “more than a mere theory. 20 words.” He wrote a “Hymn to Material” in the style of St. Bertrand Russel can help us understand the cultural atmosphere of today (Science and Religion. a mere brain function. the Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. and empiric.. 26 Mar 2014 D. which some would say indicates that religious experience is a pure fantasy.

Aristotelian. An Introduction A. 11. Ockham actually proposed the idea in order to protect God’s freedom with respect to creation. B. asking whether faith is really as scientific as they made it out to be: “The difference between the . but if you want to be a follower of truth. Synthesis fidei 1. The alternative is a position of philosophical realism (Platonic. are manifestations of this essere.” Is it true that reason is a light. Note that this order (Act before Analysis) is the reverse of what we have already seen. we believe that it can be rendered intelligible. Thomistic. nor can he speak. Building from St Augustine’s comment that habet oculos fides. handled. the assumption that the only things that really exist are concrete things. D. From the Analysis of Faith to the Synthesis of Faith A. etc. B. For more reading on this subject. is more than all of these. Being. Analysis fidei 1. it has created a cultural atmosphere which is difficult for religion. The investigation of the act of faith itself is the question par excellence of Fundamental Theology. “The Act of Faith: Analysis and Synthesis” I. 2. Fr Patsch recommends Rahner’s essay. then believe. who has come of age and is proud of his reason…” (LF 2). 3.” For him. but as the idea has played out. 2. and its gratuitousness. and faith a darkness? II. The classic position is that “revelation is believed through faith. One can't believe if he doesn't understand. “Believe” seems opposed to “search”: “if you want peace of soul and happiness. This is a classic theological term for describing the study of the act of faith: its freedom. his entire life. We. However. then seek. C. It cannot be the necessary result of an undeniable chain of reasoning. really exists. Rousselot’s idea of the “eyes of faith” brings this to the front: faith has a synthetic power which allows us to see and understand with new eyes. however. which involves the entire person. We might note also St Thomas’ notion of oculata fides (seeing faith). it has often been thought that the light [of faith] could be enough for ancient society but is not useful in our time for man. which. with roots in the thought of William of Ockham. etc. F. E. The overall Catholic position is that faith is not a sacrificium intellectus—rather. which can be seen. Ironically. 10. in contrast to Ockham who based on a nominalistic perspective saw faith as something more extrinsic to the human person. The on-going apparent tensions seem to be the result of certain philosophical assumptions common in our time: in particular. Lumen Fidei: “In the modern age. 21 9. (The Eyes of Faith) questions the models of his day.” However. because the act of faith is at once a human act and a divine gift.) and an affirmation of an analogia entis. C. the writings of Polkinghorne. and implicates both objective and subjective dimensions. we do have to make a distinction between faith and reason in order to see how they can work together. This is dangerous. who invites his sister to “run new ways” and not to fear the “uncertainty. essere. its reasonability. It is often assumed that faith and reason are opposed to each other. and all things that exists. This a term emphasizing the holistic nature of the act of faith. It is not the result of a decisive conclusion but rather a free act formally motivated by God’s trustworthiness. The encyclical cites Nietzsche. This assumption is a species of philosophical nominalism which in its unrestricted form is a distinctly modern idea. Rousselot in Les yeux de la foi. this expresses a sort of “auto-foundation” of faith. and some of Hans Küng’s thoughts on the subject.

” F. or praeambula fidei: the existence of God. The perception of credibility and the act of belief are the same act. The Process of Believing: Revelation “Known” through Signs Accessible to Reason A. If the Church in antiquity had not . A caution from Vatican I: Si quis dixerit. it is that of giving to love an essential role in the act of faith. Towards a Synthesis A. Jn 17:17). Before affirming the “credibility” of faith. Thus. the synthesis achieved in seeing with the eyes of faith to arrive at the ratio fidei is not a purely subjective change but a genuine perception of reality. As Rousselot wrote. C. The Church could exist without theology done at universities. then today only the simpletons would believe. Fides et Ratio notes. We must refer to that base of the Church's life. Rousselot wants to create a much more organic union between the intellectual aspect and the emotional/existential aspect of faith. III. The difference in seeing someone with or without the “eyes of love”. or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema. since God's word is Truth (cf. etc. In general. Fr Patsch gave two analogies: 1. but in the greater or lesser power of the intellectual activity. assensus fidei christianae non esse liberum sed argumentis humanae rationis necessario produci. we should see faith as having both rational and supernatural components. D. while faith is strengthened and aided by reason. B. Q.” D. But if the Church in antiquity had not been linked with Greek philosophy. 2. without detriment to the most rigorous intellectuality. ‘First see clearly. This is somewhat inevitable when doing theology. B.. This is like (meta)physics: we have abstract concepts like preambula fidei.] IV. and then you'll see. 22 one who sees and the other does not need to be searched for in some difference in the elements of representation. But we must not forget the “unnaturality” of this situation. which considers the believability of revelation as such. while its final goal will be an understanding of that word which increases with each passing generation. a notion pointed out by St Thomas in the ST. the recognition of credibility and the assent of faith are the same act. Another important concept here is cognition per connaturalitatem. ratio fidei. In fundamental theology. 2. 45. saw a bishop’s chair which reminded him of that back in his home diocese.’ Others say. recognizing the truth of revelation presupposes a reasonability to faith. as if we were speaking of things entirely extraneous to our lives. Seeing with the “eyes of nostalgia” did not change any facts of the matter but rather gave him access to a dimension of the chair which had previously not been perceived. and so on. (If anyone says that the assent to Christian faith is not free. Art... “Theology's source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed in history. synthesis fidei. which had been obscured in neo- scholastic theology: “Some say ‘Believe blindly. the conditions of the possibility of revelation. pursued in keeping with its own rules—can only help to understand God's word better” (73). D. The starting point of this synthesis is a hermeneutic circularity between faith and reason. Yet. [Note: the ref is ST II-II. but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason. which points to the fact that there is a spiritual affinity we have with the truths of faith or a quasi-intuitive experiential knowledge of them. This justification is seen not so much by a conclusive demonstration (human reason is too weak to convince of all the matters of faith on its own) but rather by a perspective informed by the “eyes of faith”. Thus. C. theology has traditionally considered the role of reason in establishing a number of presuppositions of the faith. This is not a vicious cycle: there exists a mutual conditioning between the two.’” The solution is ‘Vision through love’: “if the solution proposed here has any merit. A friend of his who during a visit to a church far from home. This is not the same as the ratio fidei.) E. Anathema sit.. The only way to recognize the signs of credibility is to affirm the reality. and then you'll believe. the human search for truth—philosophy.

Per FR 14. An important author here is J. Emphasis on the appropriate “relevance” 5. historical. there emerge certain truths which reason. Early adulthood (the Renaissance. B. 67).Aquinas VI. Fides et Ratio treats the term in the context of fundamental theology: 1. fundamental theology should show how. but it yet may provoke some thought. “The demons believe and tremble. The “weak reason” is spoken of often. When we say that faith is credible. C. “Revelation [theological sense] therefore introduces into our history [philosophical-historical sense] a universal and ultimate truth which stirs . directing them towards the richness of the revealed mystery in which they find their ultimate purpose” (FR. V. a point expressed by I Cor 1:9 (“God is trustworthy/faithful”). in the light of the knowledge conferred by faith. Christians. 1. as can academics of the highest levels. for example. Vives. from its own independent enquiry. contact the experts if it looks real). a decision which sometimes results in a rebellion against the beliefs and values of youth. as well as the corresponding act of faith. Pie-Ninot says there’s been a recovery of a sense of the importance of rhetoric. we are saying that it is trustworthy. B. When we dialogue with the followers of other religions. “In studying Revelation and its credibility. Communicative/hermeneutic intentionality 4. 3. Revelation endows these truths with their fullest meaning. We can also speak of a triple articulation of credibility in theological. An Evolutionary Approach to Faith A. At full maturity. finding a common ground of belief is hard. The faith of a child takes place in a “mythical world” in which reality and myth are not distinguishable. But we must not forget simplicity: simple village women and peasants in remote regions can believe. 3. then today the Church wouldn't exist. but most of all working to cultivate an attitude of turning toward God as triumphant over the powers of hell and not to worry too much—we should not focus our spirituality on base things. already perceives. C. Fr Patsch proposes a developmental view of faith which we might apply at both the individual and the societal levels. bless the house. against various relativisms. might not find much in common in belief. perhaps) involves a movement toward having to make a conscious choice to live one’s faith in an active way. 2. Orientation toward “practice”: a certain pragmatism. 2. 23 been linked with Roman jurisprudence. Verifiability 6. but the weakness of reason does not mean that one cannot speak of universal truths. Belief as a Reasonable Proposition A. Somewhat reminiscent of Teilhard de Chardain. 7. 4. New elements for understanding the credibility of faith as a reasonable proposition today: 1. But finding a common ethical ground is much easier. Adolescence (perhaps analogous with the medieval world) continues on these foundations but begins to distinguish myth and reality. these beliefs are present but one becomes again sensitive to the spiritual dimension of the world around us. In recent magisterial teaching. but much at the ethical level. responding as appropriate with the traditional spiritual means given to us by the Church (pray. A renewed attention to the ability of reason to appeal universally. Muslims and Jews. A pastoral question: how should a priest respond to an older woman of simple faith who reports being bothered by the devil? Per Fr Patsch. or persuasive argumentation in a listener/place/time-appropriate manner (rather than the dismissive use of the term “rhetoric” as mere propaganda).” . and anthropological senses. the appropriate response is one of listening to the particulars of her situation.L.

Theodramatik. of excessive moralism. if today these words did not sound foolish. Per Fr Patsch.” There is a certain renunciation necessary. They intend to express that the book has been written in good will. but also with regard to the element of faith. Una teologia dell’atto di fede (Queriniana 167) April 2. While avoiding a notion which overly externalizes revelation or radically opposes it the world. The Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) asks for the water of life precisely because she realizes her own misery and sin. Epilogue: The video testimony of Sister Maria. on the other hand. not simply with regard to its object and method. Fr Patsch suggests: 1.” II. a turning toward God and a detachment from the world. In one fascinating scene. natural/supernatural. this would not be wrongly understood. we should note that there is a difference of quality between it and other disciplines.. And so. 3. The traditional oppositions faith/reason. you are already in a context of faith. A Phenomenology of a “Theory of Renunciation” I. Pierre Rousselot. One of the biggest challenges in preaching is explaining this leap: that to turn towards God is impossible without an emptying of myself.” 4. Jesus’ reply implies a double standard: the commandments themselves are insufficient for this man. and the notion of connaturality with the truth. theology nonetheless requires this self-emptying. Christoph Böttigheimer. the Rich Young Man. He calls this the “Way of Renunciation. Hans Urs von Balthasar. who says that every choice implies renouncing something.” To speak of credibility in a theological context presupposes the faith.. 2014 The Analysis of Faith and the Act of Faith I. 5. Comprendere la fede. then is moved to ask our Lord to remember him. because if you are doing theology. For further reading. 2. was unwilling to face this renunciation (Mt 10:17-23) who has kept all of the commandments asks what he must do to obtain eternal life. The “good thief” crucified next to Jesus admits his total failure in life. Wittgenstein wrote in 1930: “I should like to say that this book were written in honor of God. In order to deepen our discussion of the analysis of faith and the act of faith. Antropologia teologica 3. VII. if. without a renunciation. II. and nature/grace bring this difference to the front. There is a special difficulty with this theme. 24 the human mind to ceaseless effort [philosophical-anthropological sense]. because it is certainly present in the Bible. The prodigal son must realize the emptiness of his vain lifestyle and see himself as standing before nothingness before turning to his father with all his heart. the core of the difference lies in an emptying or renunciation of self which is at the heart of theology. A. We want to try to do theology in the same way. Luis Ladaria. Les yeux de la foi [The eyes of faith] 2. A. in a way. we will investigate two themes: a phenomenology of renunciation. etc. that is. and in the measure in which it has not been written with good will. III. 1. When considering theology. indicating that something intrinsically different is going on in theology. who must also sell all he has . Zaccheus with his conversion finds an interior need to empty himself and “hurry down. giving it a supernatural level. I-5 4. Biblical data can help us understand this leap better. This is something people don't want to hear. one is accused of rigidity.

. nor your maid. 45. nor your son. The 10 commandments are basically deducible from reason and thus can also be found in the cultural environment surrounding Israel. It is at the heart of the Decalogue. The difficult part of making a choice is not saying “yes” to something positive. but a Person. thus at the heart of Israel's spirituality. Also the attention to and concern for the foreigner is unparalleled. A General Overview from Aquinas and Augustine A. He draws backwards. above all Barth. Thomas writes about right judgment coming either through a perfect use of reason or through some sort of connaturality. IV. not just one: to avoid idolizing the text itself. nor your beast. . one sees the Creator's pedagogy. Thomas wants to give a theological foundation to mystical experience: mysticism is a form of knowledge. spouse. we can see many parallels to this point: all the ancient religions involve moral standards. Dt 5:14). There is this dynamic of offering Himself and hiding Himself. I must necessarily renounce something else.” Revealing Himself. Definitio est negatio – definition is negation. But Jesus insists on a leap to a level beyond this. because God is Transcendental and is not “in our pocket. now what theological error is there in the above explication? 1. ascetical practices. were right in this sense. “The seventh day. Some theologians see in this a weekly “liberation” of slaves. 25 (empty himself!) and come follow Jesus. The pattern re-occurs so much throughout human life that it seems to be intentional on the part of the Creator. For this reason. 2. One must choose. How to understand the mystical experience? Thomas seeks to understand it on the basis of connatural knowledge. Recall the kenosis of the Christological hymn in Philippians 2:6-11: “He humbled Himself.. He emptied Himself. which entails renouncing (vocation. you know in another way”—this knowing is true knowledge. nor your slave. This is a very strong law. In the process of a spouse's death and one's own. It's this: The aspect of Israel.. this theology is non-negotiable in this sense. raising children. Theological reflection: towards a theology of renunciation A. The decalogue expresses an anti-idolatry aspect of our theology. Think especially of the Sabbath. Thomas’ use of it shows his continuity in this respect with the Augustinian theological tradition. Q. Ok. They are the “golden rule” for social life. II-II. something unheard of in the surrounding cultures. B. retirement. and have mystical traditions that emphasize self-emptying to one degree or another. A common point in mystical theology is that “if you love. it is not a text that is at the center of our faith. B. this involves a wisdom by which we taste and see divine things through experience. Charity became stronger. nor your daughter. there are 4 Gospels. but rather accepting the renunciation that this entails. you shall make no one work. In theology. in the great Mesopotamian cultures. This is the ultimate renunciation. neither yourself. because the world was opened more fully to God in a new way. To say that the 10 commandments are so general that they can be found in other religions and cultures is a mistake. the death of a life partner). nor the foreigner that dwells with you” (Es 20:10. Anthropological (pastoral) parallels: this emptiness is also present in everyone's life. Thus. more explicit after Christ's coming. and only through poverty do we attain true wealth. It is not a text that we adore.” This forms a basic pattern which reoccurs in many places. If I choose something. Augustine speaks to this as such: When I experience good things of creation. This type of knowledge surpasses the level of pure reason acting alone. becoming a parent. Building on some of St Thomas’ remarks. B. Art. this type of knowledge involves a judgment based upon either experience or an affective relationship with the object of rational judgment. Knowledge through Connaturality (cognitio per connaturalitatem) I. In religions outside of Christianity. There is an eschatalogical moment here as well. Only through self-emptying do we find fullness. In the Summa Theol. but it does not come through rational discourse as such but from an innate sensitivity to the truth.. The protestant dialectic theologians.

though relativism and individualism are negative. liberal democracy: we're not in a monarchy anymore. Revelation: the “universal and definitive” word of God I. postmodern pluralism: this is not a negative thing. The question is. But many developments are positive. In particular. But to meet this context is inevitable. Although he did not provide an answer to the question. or economic context. like the conquest of the notion of the separated. In faith. one must acknowledge that there have been great changes and revolutions in human thought and existence. etc. and thus bring the other into my world or into a knowledge that has a profound meaning for me. Meaning of Revelation A. Summary balance on “connaturality. what is the key to reading and interpreting documents. something known only to me. B. comparative religions. we are created to desire the fullness of truth in the beatific vision. “What was the problem with the old Roman/Gregorian school of Fundamental Theology?” a. . as well as the end of “great narratives” which led to extreme nationalism.. we'll study how much democracy is not applicable in ecclesiology. to know God. There are presuppositions to being able to know God: both ontological presuppositions (creation) and moral presuppositions (by virtue and grace). II. we note that the intellect is connatural with (ordered toward) the truth—ultimately. and live the requisite sort of moral & supernatural life through virtue and God's grace. Fr Patsch posed a sort of meta-question regarding the on-going relevance of scholastic reasoning. Extended to creatures. You've got to be careful with Heidegger. The hermeneutic challenge is to elaborate today the context in which you must do theology. But still.. isolated ego by the idea of community. there was a need to do theology in a certain way. 2. 26 even the good things of sense perception. In ecclesiology. we notice both a habitus of a rational character and one which modifies this purely natural tendency. That is to say. scientific neoplatonism d. Connaturality adds the aspect of relation and of the proper movement of the appetite. empiric sociology/psychology e. it indicates the identity of nature. because in that context. Fr Patsch notes the following basic tendencies: 1. you can lose the sense of the continuity of human maturation. biblical criticism f. it expresses a relation of “fittingness” between a being and its end. he articulated the evolution of the human ideal from the hero (in antiquity) to the saint (in the Middle Ages) to the insecure consumer (today). in the inter-Trinitarian relations. laid out in Vatican I. Citing Heidegger’s “history of being” (Seinsgeschichte). “revelation” means to communicate what is unknown. The “positivity of love” is the final motivation of choosing Christianity. he did note the changing vision of the human person which has influenced any possible answer to it. c. “Never underestimate your predecessors” – this is a very important. Or rather. what is the context of today? a. because. In common language. C. I experience God in some sense. At this point. it can mean that I open to another what is intimately mine. but there is also a negative aspect. this explains the “fittingness” (convenienza) of mystical experience. whether your talking about the theological. global. I must both be created with the correct ontological structure. to disclose something hidden. spiritual. b. in response to the Liberal threat. The context today is new.” A. We are involved in the interior life of the Trinity in virtue of our baptism. Applied to God. Consequently. In today’s context. of its historic modification of its development. radicalizing his thought.

but also Bonhoeffer and Bloch (sp). The first tendency was the “theology of identity. For Protestants. as representations of the ways of doing theology. The third was “political theology”. Wolfhart Pannenberg. 2. and the feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson. B. On the one hand. Etymology: apokaluptein – to reveal. Thus they constructed a demonstration of the Christian and Catholic religion. G Perrone) rationalism. or at least at the level of conflict of interpretation. Vatican II: a journey from revelation as doctrine to the Person of Christ as Revealer of the Father. of which the most important figures was Metz. Biblical litteralists and neo-scholastics seem to take this model. So too. of which the last is probably the most important but least-discussed. From the Enlightenment came a harsh epistemological and ideological criticism of revelation. 3. though. This is firstly about the Enlightenment understanding. are valid: 1. but they don't fit the clients so perfectly. In it. epistemological side. Tillich. Revelation as history: the opposite of the previous. he presents five models of revelation. 5. These founded the Roman school of Fundamental theology. A model is something constructed simply in order to help us understanding something complex. It's like a mannequin in a store window: clothes fit perfectly on the mannequins. because. if we take a position. and yet it also has a sense of “veil again. Küng. 4. On the other. The word “model” allows us to see the legitimacy of plurality in theology. this takes the form of scripture. 2. magisterial pronouncements. Such generalizations are always dangerous. This aspect was present in all the moments of an intellectual construction. The modern history of the concept of Revelation: A. This has an influence at Vatican II. Gibellini suggests in his book a fourfold division of contemporary typology. then we find ourselves immediately in class warfare. a fundamental theologian in Chicago. the norms. 1. It emphasizes the importance of an interior communication with God. it insisted on reducing religion to the level of ethics. 4. renewal in the field of biblical studies. patristics. The Bible is the magisterium. Dialectic presence: some theologians in Europe after WWI rejected both the objectivity of the first two models and the subjectivity of the third. The fourth movement was the “theology in the era of globalization. 2. especially those revealed in the Bible. models don't fit theologians exactly. They have to be adjusted to the client. who represented post-secular theology. Rahner. One of the big contributions of Habermas was to always keep in mind the relevance to the world of politics and society.” Two exemplars would be Barth and Von Balthasar. it insisted on a “de-masking” of revelation. the teacher of History. for Catholics. A theological survey of the 20th century: A. Revelation as doctrine: revelation can be individuated into various positive affirmations of God the teacher. New Consciousness/Awareness . this model is subjective. 1. insofar as it teaches what God has done. Tracey. their motives were to confront the unbelieving and the heterodox. Internal Experience: if the first two were objective. Nouvelle Theologie. it refers to the removal of the veil. III. Avery Dulles (1918-2008): Among his works were Revelation Theology: A History. God reveals himself it His great works. A History of Apologetics. 3. But the models. II. etc. Re-velare: The Latin translation is telling. which insisted on the reception of revelation on the part of diverse cultural contexts: Bultmann. and Models of Revelation. and instead suggested a dialectic between them. liturgy. The second was “theology of correlation”. to the worldly level.” Among the figures would be the Peruvian priest Guitierrez. 3. 27 B. Vatican I: Dei Filius (JS Drey.” Here again we see the dialectic of “reveal – draw back” referred to above. a certain Tanzanian priest.

Lessing. say the scriptures. a common language.the being comprehended in dialogue is not just an attempt at triumphing one's own point of view. On the other hand. an “analogical theology” in order to understand the Catholic concept of Revelation.we announce against him the curse that Eleazar pronounced against his sons. the same revelation becomes itself transformed through our eyes. The documents of the Church speaking about the Bible speak about logos and rhema very often. II. b. he listens to him. therefore. For describing the Catholic understanding of what revelation is. A real dialogue changes both sides. and curse Baruch Spinoza. Bonaventure noted that Pater Verbo quod ab ipso procedit dicit se et omnia [By the Word which proceeds from him. Consider the mystery of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple: how can a tiny child in this particular place and time have a universal significance? . which are drawn from the Torah. How is it universal? 1. but in the way in which we could see Him. as the confirmation that God is with us. can be seen as the universal and definitive word of God to us. think of Spinoza. three analogous concepts are useful: 1. In the encounter with God through Revelation. 258-282 in La Teologia Fondamentale. expressed this particular objection clearly: “truths of history cannot be necessary truths of reason”. Revelation as Presence: a. medieval theologians generally saw the two as compatible. 9 Apr 2014 “The Concretum Universale: Fundamental Category of Revelation” I. above all His death and resurrection. came to us not in the way that he could.” God adopted Himself to our capacity to receive Him. When one encounters a “you”. the Enlightenment-era thinker. a relationship in which both sides change.. it would seem that universal truths of reason and concrete facts of history are mutually exclusive. You can kill someone with the word. Revelation as encounter: a. There is something in the middle in which both partners participate. We find ourselves in a “neighborly” situation. and to the last words of Christ on Earth: I will be with you to the end of the age. We Christians are called to bless. In that ceremony. B. recapitulating all in Himself. Revelation as Word: a. b. This theme is central in today's manuals of Fundamental Theology. his salvific will is universal—he has a “zeal” to see all humans saved. our person. A very valid method that is perhaps under-emphasized in our theology. This is no great revelation. This material corresponds to Thesis 5 and pp.. IV. excommunicate. 28 C. “Our Lord. With the word. For example. who began Biblical criticism. they read the Anathema: “We anathematize. Saint Irenaeus wrote. but a transformation of self into that what is held in common” (cf. 3. b. The Name of God's Son is Word of God. Gadamer says that “every dialogue requires. In other words. Dulles also seeks to elaborate his own suggestion or position. slides). It refers to the meaning of Isaiah's word. or constitutes. DV 4 refers to Jesus' revelation. say the scriptures. He was excommunicated by the Jewish community in June 1673. then. Introduction A.” Then follow the curses. 2. Revelation is always a communication. Revelation. so that we could have an experience of Him. you can give life and take it. A Problem: How Can Something Be Both “Universal” and “Concrete”? A. our involvement. the Father expresses both himself and all things]... “Emmanuel”.. For one. But to dramatize a bit the important of this theme.. and to be ourselves a blessing in our very existence. A.

The expression universale concretum emerges in Hegel. 2. to which Boethius also seemed to adhere. To show the existential implications of this problem. In a sense. The human being does not mean much. while the universe itself knows nothing of him. There is no ulterior “mission” which brings the human intellect outside of the life of man. we might consider the perspective of modern science. who argued that the universal is united dialectically to the particular. he claimed that philosphy is the mortal enemy of the abstract. nor is there any connection between individual existents c. and how do we come to know it? Historical. [the exact opposite of radical realism] b. Thus. derived by abstracting from the essential communis b. small as it is III.5 seconds ago.. To frame the question. but there are genuine concepts. b. 29 B. but a reed that thinks. the idea is in the thing c.. The expression originates in Idealist philosophy with thinkers like Hegel. He knows the superiority of the universe above him. making it a sort of universale concretum. Universale ante rem 2. Radical (“exaggerated”) realism a.” and soon. There exists an Idea prior to any instance of it in the world. Universale post rem 3. sarcastic opinion of Nietzsche seems justified by what modern science and cosmology tell us about the origins. there have been three broad categories of solutions: 1. Karl Barth. Thus. . To take two examples. since the human is its own possessor and guide. and the two must be held together. Even concepts are simply a flautus vocis (mere talk) d. c. which has come to see man as a very small part of a very large universe. This cynical. 1. Fichte. Bultmann debated this idea in the context of “kerygmatic theology” to emphasize the universal anthropological importance of faith above and beyond the historical facts. Christ's birth would then be 4. since the truths of faith have a universal importance beyond the historical events. on the other hand. there was once a celestial body from which a few intelligent animals discovered consciousness. In 20th century theology.. There are no Ideas in the strong sense. Moderate realism a. these animals died off.” Thus. on the basis of what reality can we say that different flowers or horses are examples of the same thing? The problem is both ontological and epistemological: what constitutes the connection. “Man is only a reed. Plato is behind this theory.. our concreteness. and Schelling. but the earliest roots of this expression lie in the medieval debates on universals. Universale in re B. This fable aims to show that the human intellect is an ephemeral. Nominalism a. our confidence in our singularity in the history of the universe might be shaken by these considerations. short-lived thing in the grand scheme of the universe. listen to the cynical expression of Nietzsche: “In some remote corner of the universe. On the other hand. This served as the basis for his understanding of Christianity as having an absolute character while still being historical. we still have a certain advantage before all other creatures. There are no Ideas. If we make a proportional analogy: take the universe's duration to be one year long. what is it to “be a flower” or “be a horse”. in that we are aware of our weakness. with his “dialectical theology” argued that Christianity is not the culmination of natural religions but rather a judgment upon them. apparently. for the universe. C. this was for less than a minute. as Pascal points out in his Pensées. Philosophical Origins of the Expression Concretum Universale A. Philosophy's job is to show that there does not exist the abstract. that the “abstract” leads us to the concrete. size. and duration of the universe..

e. famously raised by St Anselm. Two traditional responses have been given to it: . the Word of God and the word of man. “The Illative sense also guides us to the unknown known. he was given to us by the Father. the Whole lies hidden in the part. H. As a starting point. IV. To respond.” 3. They articulated many world-changing ideas. making him the hinge of all space and time. F. Cur oeconomia revelationis? 1. Hegel’s bizarre discussions of being as becoming. we have a radical need for assistance in a concrete manner that can speak to the universal. comparable to phronesis of Aristotle or to conscience. Theological Reflection . freedom and obligation in marriage. Per Jn 3:16 and Rom 8:31. It is an intuitive sense in man that leads him to the good. to the God unknown by reason. singular. this move toward a “universal” judgment occurs in the reciprocal relationship between transcendental and categorical revelation (i. Cur Deus homo? – Why a God made man? 1. For Rahner. G. Heidegger’s shameful association with the Nazis. we can observe a lived tension between opposed things at both natural and divine levels: love and justice. “In the Incarnation of the Son of God we see forged the enduring and definitive synthesis which the human mind of itself could not even have imagined: the Eternal enters time. Plato hadn't seen anything to reject in homosexual practice of the time. God’s immanence and transcendence. his design to recapitulate [ἀνακεφαλάιωσις] all things in Christ. and on the other hand. which they considered in connection with Christology: Jesus has a universal application. again. Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor can be seen as having hinted at this notion. to the question of the economy of revelation. Newman develops the notion of the Illative Sense. Ss. The economy of revelation is fundamentally historical. In general. he gave himself up for us (Gal 2:20). Nicholas Cusano (15th century) used a method of coincidentia oppositorum in which he explicitly connected the idea with Christ as an attempt to overcome the problem. a sort of “common sense”. a preparation for the Gospel. Finally. of the historicity of our faith: think of the history of philosophy in broad strokes: the greatest thinkers of history have made the biggest mistakes: Aristotle’s rationalization of slavery. Christ assumes the totality of history. historical individual. arises from consideration of Jesus’ life as a “man for others”. The questions here are: Why an economy of revelation? Why should revelation have happened in this historic way? 2.The category of universale concretum can be observed in three theological questions: why the economy of revelation? Why did God become man? And how can the Church be the universal sacrament of salvation? A. Why did God wait so long until entering into history in this way? Eusebius of Caesarea provides the famous theologumenon that God used history as a praeparatio evangelica. with Jesus Christ being true God and true man. Fides et Ratio 12 says.” Through this recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλάιωσις). Reflecting on this. the universal fundamental questions/responses and the historical facts/words of revelation). 4. consider Ephesians 1:10: “God has made known the mystery of his will through his plan [οἰκονομία] in the fullness [πλήρωμα] of time. It is the foundation of our intuitive certainties. Augustine had accepted the slavery of the time and placed women inferior to men. E. 30 D. but He is also a concrete. whom we know nevertheless exists” – An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Most of all. Such dialectical tensions must be held together without reducing to exclusively one side or the other. we see this in the Incarnation. and beautiful in concrete circumstances. This question. B. von Balthasar’s Theology of History identifies Christ as the concrete Idea and the Holy Spirit as guiding the abstractive action which allows us to recognize him. but even in the intellectual sphere. true.

Today: post-liberal theology tends toward this direction (concretum) b.” b. In Küng’s well-known phrase. Can people professing different absolute truth claims tolerate each other in the same society? v. and sacred rites.” For him. An integralism that tries to avoid this tension is false. She regards with sincere . In this context. Rahner. 2: “other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart. for there is only one true religion. “there will be no peace among the nations until there is peace among the different religions. Schlette iv. Who will be saved? vi. iii. With regard to the question of tolerance. not as members of those religions but through an implicit connection with Christ) ii. there will be no peace among the religions without dialogue between them. while ideological pluralism can be extremely intolerant. each in its own manner. sola gratia. The Church too is subject to eschatological judgment. that is to say. coming from God Himself. Is there a morality without religion? 3. there are three basic positions among Christians: a. it is fruitful to consider a personal interest of Fr Patsch’s: how do other religions relate to the absolute claims of Christ? a. “Ecclesiocentrism” iv. Does religion arise solely from a natural predisposition? ii. In other words. the enacted attempt of man to justify himself without God. Some basic questions that should be asked include: i. The question is quite contemporary. Is there something which the various religions have in common? iii. Inclusivism—“salvation of those in other religions” i. as the theologian Schlette noted in 1963. Barth wrote. Adherents of other religions can be saved because Christ in some way brings fulfillment to what other religions lack (i. rules of life. it was “new dogmatic territory. “Religion is incredulity. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.e. sola scriptura. the Son of man would not have come” (Sermon 174). Representatives: Kraemer. Christocentrism iii. This is usually connected with the three sola on which we are supposedly to be judged: sola fide. The Universale Concretum doesn't mean the absoluteness of Christianity or the Catholic Church. but something altogether different. religion is par excellence the fact of man without God. b. Why should we dialogue with each other? iv. Barth. and there will be no dialogue between them without research on the foundations of the religions. Duns Scotus: God became Incarnate because He “wanted to share His love with us”. v. Representatives: Daniélou. In other words. With regards to the thorny issue of salvation. Nostra Aetate. Saint Augustine: “if man had not fallen. “theology of religions” should be taken in a subjective genitive sense as a way of doing theology in an interreligious context. 2. Barth ii. we should note with Kaspar that we do not have to absolutize the concrete universal: truth insofar as it is believed in love can be tolerant. Exclusivism—“no salvation in other religions” i. Christianity was not a religion. the Incarnation occurred primarily because of the super-abundance of God’s love towards us.” Thus." comprising teachings. by proposing "ways. the Incarnation occurred specifically as a response to human sin. The eschatological judgment will unfold in this sense. Formal adherence to Christianity is required for salvation. 31 a. Kraemer.

Lk 17:18.] 4.. Principal exponent: John Hick in “God Has Many Names. The possibility of salvation of those belong to other religions (cf. Exclusivists find plenty of scriptural support: Acts 4:12. Christianity. In Jesus God has given us something very special. ii. and exponents of this view have generally not felt a need to do so. “Theocentrism” or “soteriocentrism” iii. c. nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Pluralism—“salvation by other religions” (universale) i. and the ambiguous legacy of Christianity in the areas of just war. while having things in common with other figures. Fr Patsch finds the pluralist position tempting but places himself in the inclusivist category because he believes that is what authentic Christian belief entails. irreducibly different.” However. will always remain different. c. Adherents of other religions can be saved by those religions as such ii.g. but Inclusivists also find evidence: Rom 5:20. etc. on the other hand. Regarding biblical foundations. Mt 15:28. said Hick. such as recognizing how each religion gives its followers a framework of meaning for their life and how every major religion makes often similar moral demands (e. the truth. has a different identity in the context of interreligious dialogue. 16 & 22) vi. 1 Tim 2:5. Islam’s sanction of “holy war”. Acts 17:21-23. exclusivism has many obvious scriptural defenses: for example. the inclusivist position also finds a ground in the New Testament. There are some major problems with pluralism. though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth. and Jesus?” There are non- negotiables in the examining of each religion: i. such as Jesus’ statements about the faith of many Gentiles and St Paul’s appropriation of Greek thought in his speech at the Areopagus. and freedom? d. iii. not just for Christians. Vive la difference! iv. the frequent occurrence of different versions of the Golden Rule). those precepts and teachings which. 1 Cor 3:11. b.” v. The difference of Jesus must be preserved. Rather. but for all people. no man comes to the Father but by me. This difference and importance of Jesus matters. [Fr Begasse also self-identified with this position.. and the life. particularly in places where Jesus and the apostles recognize positive aspects of non-Jewish religions. Christ’s declaration in John 14:6 that he is “the way. The above quote reflects two positions that were at the time radically novel: 1. remaining identical with itself. is difficult to defend from Scripture. A positive evaluation of the worth of other religions 2. Today: theological pluralism d. however: what to make of the Hindu caste system. Within these positions. is to move from an idea centered on Jesus to one centered on God. Jn 14:6. Additional Notes on the Relationship of Christianity to Other Religions: arguments for and against each [RN: taken from April 30th lecture] a. Radicalized hermeneutic for reading other religions v. which recognizes the personality of the other. 32 reverence those ways of conduct and of life. relations with Judaism. Mt 8:10-12. on the “divine reality. Jesus. Buddhist indifference to social justice. Because of this “something”. .” Knitter and Panikkar also represent this current. Today: “Relational Christianity” (unviversale concretum et personale).. Gaudium et Spes. Pluralism. The strongest argument against pluralists: “. they appeal to a number of positive points of their position.” The Copernican revolution in religion. something not done in any other place which will not be done again elsewhere.

hierarchic society – mystical body. There was a tendency to oppose grace and institution after the council. The Church exists from Babel. g. Cur Ecclesia Sacramentum Universale Salutis? – Why the Church as universal sacrament of salvation? [cf. of the novelty. 33 e. ubi est ecclesia. We might not feel the weight of this thought. For this reason.” All men are ordered toward the Church. Nosce Te ipsum – Is this an “anthropocentric” starting point? C. though happily he was reconciled to the Church before his death. and implicitly the Church is present in the moment of a graced act in history. the professor seeks an authentic approach that takes the truth of the other seriously. while at the same time maintaining one's own identity. a.] f.” b. have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. there God is). above all. The activity of the Spirit is the proof of the Church's presence. For his intransigence on this issue. the question which is currently in play has to do with the precise role of other religions in the economy of salvation. are not to be considered as two realities. We are back to the famous contradictions: human – divine. without blame on their part. it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. the new-ness of this thought. ibi est Deus (Where the Church is. because the phrase “institutional grace” is a new word. Redemptionis Missio 10: Grace always has a mysterious link with the Church! Magisterial language speaks often of the orientation or ordering of all persons to the Church. towards the Church as the promoter of our “transcendental ordering. everything is somehow present. Saint Irenaeus wrote already in the 2nd century. LG 8: “But the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ. nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community. Pie-Ninot 258-282] 1. Point of departure: Lumen Gentium gives a very strong emphasis to the sociological aspect of our religion. 30 April. he was excommunicated in 1953.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who. 2014 . says Lumen Gentium as a motive for its existence in space and time. God's salvific will in Jesus Christ is that all be saved: totum non totaliter – Tutto ma non totalmente: in Christ. on the basis of anthropology or ontology: all men are ordered towards the beatific vision. This line of thought also goes against the fairly clear language of Lumen Gentium 16: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church. 2. Here we have space for theological reflection.” Per the International Theological Commission. not however overlooking the mystical aspect. The institution and grace have to be maintained together. nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things. we might consider the interesting 20 th-century case of Fr Feeney. rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. by no weak analogy. but the task is to maintain them together. 3. [Regarding other religions. an American Jesuit who obstinately defended a very strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus—so strict that he maintained that no non-Catholics would be saved. but not totally. Regarding exclusivism. not if those in other religions can be saved (which has been settled). and in this sense. He suggests as reading Ratzinger's book Truth and Tolerance.

and in the preaching of Tirthankara . To explore in more detail what an anthropological starting point means. Most of our contemporaries seem to think that above all we must ask ourselves if. Major exponents of this approach include Maréchal. but rather as Christians we are conducting our philosophical reflection in dialogue with modernity. C. let us consider Heidegger’s approach to fundamental ontology: the existential analytic of Dasein. I don’t mean that people talk too much about God nor even that too few books about philosophy and theology are published. 20-21) C. At the end it will be much clearer. as also in the Veda and the Avesta. Know Thyself A. For us. In the language of Fides et Ratio 1: D. We are becoming more and more aware of our limits. there are too few people who think that God does not exist for them but rather that they exist for God. Yes. In order to understand the credibility of revelation. etc. As he describes in Being and Time. Kant. A concrete event. Rousselot. and knowing yourself is essential for thinking and theologizing well. This means that our starting point is anthropological. arriving at concrete theologies. but that is a shallow characterization. that must be interpreted. our narrative in theology. or that the Gospel be proclaimed to the cultures as a whole. making our discourses. an anthropological starting point is not an impious negation of God but rather an undeniable part of the structure of how we come to understand. We're doing this. I consider this anthropocentric problematic erroneous and am of the opinion that such a strange way of forgetting God is perhaps the most fundamental problem today. The Church. and in what respect God is important for man. “Know Yourself” in Fides et Ratio: 1. why. then. Dasein is not merely one being among others but rather has an existential relationship with its own being. we need to understand the believer in revelation. that of Jesus Christ. a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world. The focus on the human subject is a basic characteristic of modernity. Evangelii Gaudium 133: It is not enough that evangelizers be concerned to reach each person.). it is not anthropocentric. so that we can make a connection. but per Fr Patsch. Further illustrating how the approach is anthropological but not anthropocentric. (Dimensioni Politiche del Cristanesimo. For me. II. B. there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel. Rahner notes in his essay “The Fundamental Question of Theology About God”: 1. a special connection with the problem of Being itself. 34 “Fides ex Auditu” I. and (in particular) Rahner. Being able to see and know one's own limits is a big modern aid to theology. with their different cultures. We are not simply “giving in” to their positions. the question of our starting point is not an indifferent one when we consider the question of what being investigates the meaning of Being. but is aware of the conditioned nature of his thought. A theology – and not simply a pastoral theology – which is in dialogue with other sciences and human experiences is most important for our discernment on how best to bring the Gospel message to different cultural contexts and groups. appreciates and encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts to advance dialogue with the world of cultures and sciences. in her commitment to evangelization. particularly as articulated philosophically by its greatest exponents (Descartes. pp. in our theological discussions I am categorized as one of the ‘anthropocentrics’. FR 1: Moreover. “Know Yourself”: the inscription of Delphi A. The professor speaks from a European point of view. we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze. Heidegger. Nosce Te ipsum – Is this an “anthropocentric” starting point? B. seeking with Maurice Blondel a philosophy which is useful for articulating our belief in our current context.

for an ultimate and definitive sense is not a “Catholic” or “Christian”. Lao-Tze. Plato and Aristotle. The core of the hermeneutic methods we have been considering is precisely the recognition of the Other and one’s own identity at the same time. Moreover. It is necessary to dialogue with the world. We want to know if death will be the definitive end of our life or if there is something beyond—if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not. To know ourselves. Diogenes: “it is difficult to know yourself. is that it cites Israel. Each of us has both the desire and the duty to know the truth of our own destiny. it is easy to admonish others” f. Antiphanes: “being mortal. it is a human thing. a very religious environment full of temples and Egyptian priests. The Bible is not sufficient for knowing the Bible. the knowledge of oneself has been closely linked with the encounter with God. Juvenal: “know yourself as having come down from heaven” g. the first absolutely certain truth of our life. It is not by chance. It is not necessary to turn to the philosophers of the absurd or to the provocative questioning found in the Book of Job in order to have doubts about life's meaning. is the inevitability of our death. if you will. who underwent his journeys and became aware of God’s promises for him precisely in the personal encounter of prayer. 4. only the . Historically. The later section of the encyclical reiterates the centrality of the human quest for meaning. Sophocles. Cicero: “know yourself not out of arrogance but rather to know the reality” e. Moses: who grew up in the city of Pharaoh. says Pie-Ninot. 35 and Buddha. Given this unsettling fact. Plato (quoting the inscription over the shrine at Delphi): “know thyself” d. Herodotus. It is not insignificant that the death of Socrates gave philosophy one of its decisive orientations. beyond the fact that we exist. rather.e. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. The Christian cannot follow the example of the Muslim general who burned the Alexandrian library and said that everything in its writings was either in the Koran (in which case it was superfluous) or not in the Koran (in which case it was unnecessary or false). Xenophon: “know yourself”Socrates: “the unexamined life is not worth living” c. no less decisive now than it was more than two thousand years ago. The daily experience of suffering—in one's own life and in the lives of others— and the array of facts which seem inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded. FR 102: There is today no more urgent preparation for the performance of these tasks than this: to lead people to discover both their capacity to know the truth and their yearning for the ultimate and definitive meaning of life. personal existence may seem completely meaningless. Homer. In the desert. Erasmus: “in quo modestiae commendatio est” (i. 3. 2. Buddha. the Veda. 5. we need others. you must think as a mortal” b. in the desert of Sinai. This is significant in Western thought: a. for which all people feel the need. as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. Confuscius. Pindar. the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives. In fact. There he knew emptiness. they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles. To know our faith. but God did not speak to Moses in this environment. together with the question of the meaning of life and immortality. Eurpides. To consider a few paradigmatic figures: 1. we need to be in contact with other religious traditions. He spoke to him. the praiseworthy fruit of self- knowledge is modesty” E. 2. the search for a full answer is inescapable. that faced with the fact of death philosophers have again and again posed this question. then. Abraham: our “father in faith”. A desire for meaning. FR 26: The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does life have a meaning? Where is it going? At first sight. The true novelty of this encyclical.

Moses knew his own identity and received his mandate to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. q. Meister Eckhar: “the knowledge of oneself is the perfection of the human condition” 11. 4. He was learning to note his interior experience. who is deeper with than my most inner self”) 7. I love you. And exactly there. Augustine: although he had heard the preaching of Ambrose. noverim te (“I will myself. he lived in desert. Thomas Aquinas: his investigation of “how the intellectual soul knows itself and all that is within it” (ST I. the Council says in GS 10: a. Some of his most characteristic sayings indicate this dynamic very well: a. Bernard: his analysis of humility as the virtue by which we know ourselves truly. John the Baptist: Certainly. F. we can note the power of his inner experience of the Father and read his own temptations as indicating an interior journey. He did not do this introspection for its own sake but rather for the purpose of following God’s will. 6. he did not go up immediately to Jerusalem but rather went into the desert for a period of some years. Mysticism in the Christian tradition always has a connection with ascetic practice. and he spoke from this experience. Paul: after his conversion on the Damascus road. but also the spirits that are affecting one. in order to know the will of God. contemplative lifestyle. which continues to exist despite so much progress? What purpose have these victories purchased at so high a cost? What can man offer to society. He knew God immediately. of evil. he still had to undergo a personal conversion.” At the same time. Ignatius of Loyola: After his conversion. and the people of Jerusalem flocked to him. “Nevertheless. after which he spent some years in a monastic. 1. Jesus Christ: he is obviously in a different category than all of the above. patterns in the movement of the spirits. the focal point and the goal of man. before his pilgrimage to the Holy Land. 8. Noli foras ire—in interiore hominis habitat veritas (“Don’t go outside—truth dwells within man”) c. 36 essential remains. Vatican II: citing this long tradition. the number constantly swells of the people who raise the most basic questions or recognize them with a new sharpness: what is man? What is this sense of sorrow. Deus interior intimo meo (“God. since he spoke from the force of personal contact with God. Anselm: redi in te ipsum (“go back and search within yourself”) 9. but even so. Noverim me. personally. Nor has any other name under the heaven been given to man by which it is fitting for him to be saved. as well as of all human history. 5. and I will know You”) b. what can he expect from it? What follows this earthly life? b. in which He revealed Himself as He is: “I am for you. Gaudium et Spes.(3) She likewise holds that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key. 87) involves an implicit reference to the dicta of Socrates and Plato above. His phenomenological investigation of his interior movements as being connected to God himself—how God acted inside him. “The Church firmly believes that Christ. In particular.” . particularly in our own time. 10: the basic question of “what is man?” continually arises. Moses had personal contact with God. during which his own identity was re-formed in the light of his direct experience of Jesus. learning to make “examinations of consciousness.” His Spiritual Exercises are. he lived an entire year in a grotto near Montserrat. because they realized that his way of speaking was different than that of the priests and doctors of the law. That's the aim: knowledge of God's will.(2) can through His Spirit offer man the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme destiny. he provides the supreme model for us in his humanity. he writes. who died and was raised up for all. “Rules to recognize the spirits”: they are not just about knowing one's self. in the face of the modern development of the world. 3. of death. 10.

Or. Originally it was held suspect by the magisterium. war. Deus est—because there is evil. despair. Practically. the presence of evil is a mystery in the strict sense: given God’s incomprehensibility. malum structurale i. which sees evil as necessary for the existence of the good. It was first used in liberation theology. we should not expect to be able to “explain away” His purposes in creation. 4. This shows the appropriate attitude before the mystery. pain/suffering built into nature) c. The optimistic solution of Leibniz. violence. The tragic solution of the existentialists (Sartre and Camus on one hand. and evil as a phenomenon which re-orients us toward the next life. as there’s not really a good response. injustice. loneliness. 5. evil as an opportunity for growth and maturation. 3. Rather. and metaphysical evil. Fr Patsch also noted the category of structural evil as one of particular relevance in our time. the question of “why?” is generally not fruitful. Dostoevsky on the other). sin. Disorder: lack of respect for the order given. B. Sickness. we should take the example of Job and his friends. we noted a number of different categories of evil: physical evil (malum physicum et psychicum). They should be encouraged to give thanks to God in spite of the suffering. the Thomistic idea that evil is the absence of a proper good.e. 37 2. natural catastrophes) b. Similarly. malum physicum/ malum psychologicum (i. Natural evil (i. What is the source of suffering in this world? What gives suffering? 1. God must exist). This has perhaps its most depressing formulation in Sartre’s statement that “hell is other people” (in No Exit). b. Rahner argues that four basic approaches to explaining why God permits evil have been tried and found wanting: evil as a natural concomitant of good (e. Moral/personal evil. There are various categories: a. 2. Leibniz). How do we address this issue? Several different approaches have been tried: 1.e. malum metaphysicum (existential evil) d. death. A new and important analogical concept. 2. evil as a result of freedom. . hunger. The Council again cites the question. moral evil. evil is the price of free will. evil is a Privatio Bonum. Per Rahner. Metaphysical evil. Against the traditional apologetics.. b. he recommended not attempting direct discourse on the subject—this mystery is not a question to which we can make a response. Through discussion. A pastoral perspective: what does one say to a person in a concrete situation of suffering? a. Knowing Ourselves and the Experience of Evil A. to justify God's existence in the presence of these evils? C. The apophatic proposal expressed by Rahner. How are these things interpreted? What are the arguments to justify evil. Structural evil. Physical evil. who remained together in silence for 7 days before attempting to speak of it. a. the first thing to emphasize is that the suffering is not some kind of vengeance from a wrathful God—it is generally unfruitful to look for a particular sin as the cause. but today the concept is used in the Catechism. what is the meaning of evil that continues despite such great progress? This leads into the second part of the lecture: III. Per Fr Patsch. Remember. 3. the order of ourselves. The intellectual proposal of many traditional approaches.. the order of nature. malum morale/ malum personale e.g. notably those of Augustine and Aquinas (the latter noted for the statement that quia malum.

12. but something to open to. we are able to participate in God. “Man is the image of God insofar as he is capable of God and can participate in His nature” (Augustine. 93. we can develop another anthropological point: man as desiderium naturale videndi Deum (natural desire to see God). is the foundational capacity of man to receive God’s self- revelation: a. as in ST III. then. ad 2). 1. not in the gnostic sense of a divine spark inside of us. 38 but we should be wary of trying to use the blessings received in suffering as an explanation for it. 1. but natural goods are limited. but in the sense that ontologically. Finally. Bringing up the Church’s teachings here would likely not be fruitful as the person is not likely in a position to receive them. Bonaventure identifies the soul itself as the image of God in man and the locus of this capacity for God. Can we say that the evils we endure are fruit of our own sins and not the work of God? The professor thinks yes. From this. Instead. 2. In his treatise on happiness. I. Three general tendencies have emerged in the reflection on this point: 1. 25. in our situation after the Fall. This statement implies that man by nature can participate in God’s nature.] Homo capax Dei (man’s capacity for God) I. The same mystery is manifested. De Trinitate. Man as capax beatitudinis and potentia obedientialis A. one can immediately conceive something yet greater—the instant I create an image. Thus. 7) and capax beatitudinis (II-II. which was included in the ntoes above. Fr. e. Our desire is infinite. Extrinsecist tendency . 11). 8. Man as desiderium natural videndi Deum A. 7 May 2014 – [Note: part of this lecture included a summary of the problem of evil. Aquinas also develops a proof for God’s existence based on the fact that humans are not content for long with any finite or created good. B. 3. As St Anselm notes. Obediential potency. so the possibility of this complete fulfillment in the infinite good of the beatific vision must exist. II. 4. d. A mystery is not a question to respond to. we should always keep in mind that evil will inevitably remain something of a mystery. on a pastoral note. 3. “potency” in that it can (but is not necessarily) obediently responsive to God. Patsch said not to ever preach in a direct way to men who are suffering. first of all listen. It's impossible to live without being under the influence of this situation of sin. 2. 11. 1. “obediential” in that it is a free response to something offered b. This “obediential potency” is a certain passive receptivity to God. the grandness of being is such that every time one conceives something (except for God). a radical openness of man to God as the infinite horizon of our being and thought. St Thomas connects this idea with the capacity for seeing God (visio Dei). St Thomas uses similar language in speaking of man as capax Trinitatis (ST. which implies an infinite cognitive horizon against which all reflection takes place. c. allowing the same mystery to reveal itself. I have immediately gone beyond that image. XIV. which if we assume that human nature is not intrinsically absurd implies that we are open in some way to an infinite happiness. Another important idea from St Thomas: man as a potentia obedientialis.

3. Lonergan. Popular before Vatican II. Emphasized the innateness of the desire to see God and the profound unity of the orders of grace and nature. Results in a refusal to allow for an ontological tendency in man towards the absolute happiness of God (because this would seem to imply that God is in some sense obliged to give humanity supernatural grace). Emphasizes a sharp distinction between the natural and supernatural orders out of a desire to highlight the absolute gratuitousness of grace. consider Gadamer’s statements in Truth and Method: 1. As in music. Furthermore: “Art is knowledge. Intrinsecist tendency a. A program of synthesis and enrichment (elucidated by Pie-Ninot) a. Interested in overcoming an exaggerated dualism that resulted from the struggle with Protestant and rationalistic thought mentioned above. [Note: this portion involved a musical demonstration with a popularity poll.e. Best-known exponents: R. [Note: Fr Patsch did not develop this point in detail. What Fundamental Theology for the 21st century? I. An approach the diversity of various theologies A. with a slant towards Transcendental Thomism: Maréchal. A particularly important exponent was Henri de Lubac.” D. and indeed from all conceptual knowledge—but still knowledge. c. Ladaria. i. inside the human sciences. Garrigou-Lagrange and H. reconciling the transcendence of God’s grace with the real affinity of the human spirit to it). de Lubac.e. Lennerz (best read with an eye toward their historical context of concerns about problematic Protestant and rationalistic approaches to nature and grace) d. a point which indicates the possibility and even need for a degree of pluralism in theological approaches. insofar as he prefers Mozart as a composer. Is our musical preference just a matter of personal taste? Does this notion of personal taste have to do with our theological preferences? What about our preference for liturgical music? C. 39 a. conveying truth?” 2. “Is there really no knowledge in art? Does not the experience of art contain a claim to truth which is certainly different from that of science but just as certainly is not inferior to it? And is not the task of aesthetics precisely to ground the fact that experience of art is a mode of knowledge of a unique kind. This points to a needed change in our notion of objectivity: it is necessarily mediated by subjectivity. c. This line of thought is also an emphasis in the Gregorian’s “school of thought”.] 4. Sought to capture the important insights of both of the above ways of thinking (i. Not necessarily anti-Thomist d. Fr Patsch suggests that because of this. it has a dignity not to be undervalued. Important exponents include many major names of 20 th century theology. but there is a nice overview on pp. and certainly different from all moral rational knowledge. b. The taste of Ratzinger. there is a certain amount of legitimate pluralism within theology. To push the art analogy. but the truth is objective. 101- 4 of La Teologia Fondamentale.] B. especially in the “Roman school” 2. Rahner. Alfaro. c. and experiencing a work of art means to share in that knowledge. E. Recommended reading: Salvifica Doloris by Pope St. b. including theology. There are matters of taste. This is not to say that there are not criteria. is an absolute in the Platonic sense. However. Rousselot. and many others. But that . certainly different from that sensory knowledge which provides science with the ultimate data from which it constructs the knowledge of nature. Belloso. John Paul II. b. the truth is not objective in the same sense as in the natural sciences.

will likely report the same facts. since I did not have to believe I would crumble into dust d. which raises the question of the legitimacy of this diversity. we note that although the “knowledge” within art is not that same as scientific or mathematical knowledge. it nonetheless speaks to the truth. So what fundamental theology should we seek in the 21 st century? The answer to this. Citing again Gadamer in Truth and Method. Returning to our discussion of music from the last lecture. To answer it. I lose everything e. He was a prisoner of the Nationalism of his era and of his metaphysical presuppositions. Two history texts. Going back to the question of music. one Italian and the other Austrian. If God does not exist and I do not believe in him. The absoluteness of the truth and the variety of expressions is something to be maintained. Big idea: “Pascal’s wager” a. and so we should not expect to either use the methods of (e. will depend upon the context. A major weakness of mainstream Catholic theology of 50 years ago was precisely its monolithic status: it presented a single theology that was perhaps appropriate for Enlightenment-era Europe but ignored the concerns and questions of the rest of the world. Historical Overview A. Blaise Pascal (17th century)—“Reasons of the heart” 1. though. was opposed to the rationalist currents of his time. French polymath 2. devoted himself to writing about philosophy and theology. you have nothing to lose by believing. Art is not simply an aesthetic nicety added on top of something already complete. regarding the objectivity of the truth.] A. He was also a Jansenist. Important work: Pensées 5. . Who is right in a historical sense? There are ways to arrive at the truth here. of course. and possibly everything to gain .g) physics nor obtain a similar type of surety. The question arises. I lose in the end but have had a more pleasant existence. . Pages 104 and following in the Pie-Ninot textbook parallel this treatment exactly but in much more detail. Theological Pluralism. consider historiography when it looks at a battle in South Tyrol (now a region of Italy but which formerly was part of the Austrian Empire).] B. Asking what the best theology might be is like asking what the best homily might be—it depends on the context. particularly if they decide to do one of the ones that Fr Patsch breezed through rapidly. but this doesn't diminish his genius. so it is advisable for everyone to read through the section in the book which corresponds to their chosen author. If God exists and I don’t believe in him. but they involve interpretation and a consideration of the context. So . C. we should again distinguish between the “clear and distinct” truths of the hard sciences and the truth achieved in the humane sciences—there is a real difference of approach. As an example. 3. III. I lose everything c. II. Note that this contextualization of truth is not the same as relativism: not all perspectives and interpretations are equally valid. B. Following a mystical experience. If God exists and I believe in him. A characteristic of theology these days is a diversity of approaches. we can note a sort of hierarchy of musical forms based on depth and the broadness of the interpretation in the greatest music. but the interpretations will vary. but rather beauty has something to do with truth itself. [Note: Fr Patsch indicated that if/when this point comes up on the exam. I gain everything (salvation) b. continued [Note: this section (up until “historical overview”) is from the May 14th lecture but was included here due to similarity in content. 40 doesn't mean that other preferences are necessarily mistaken. If God does not exist and I believe in him. Von Balthasar’s project of connecting beauty with truth in theology was an application of a similar insight. 4. he only expects us to talk about our choice of 1 of the following philosophers/theologians. Fr Patsch clarifies his point that a range of theological approaches are permissible by analogy with the acknowledged importance of enculturated music within the liturgy.

2. Paul Tillich (20th century)—“method of correlation” 1. Narration c. French academic who argued for belief in God against the secular positivism dominant in his time 2. German Protestant theologian. spiritual knowledge. moved to America to escape Nazi persecution. even in “pure” philosophy. Theism. this is the basic idea of phenomenology. I determine the answer I receive. Maurice Blondel (19th/20th century)—“method of immanence” 1. Says that transcendental theology doesn't help theology. In other words. but also those of the past and future who have no other present voice H. German theologian 2. Sought to create a phenomenological anthropology 2.” b. Ultimate concern is that which determines our being or non-being b. 4. Big ideas: a. then “you can’t say that we are entirely at home even when at home” a. and Gnosticism are historic modes of experience of the foundation of the real. Revelation necessarily connects with precisely these existential questions ii. Spanish philosopher 2. Special task of theology ii. Solidarity not only with those living. Remembering (the history of mankind itself. When I ask something. D. in some way. Big idea: . Xavier Zubiri (20th century)—“understanding of the binding of man” 1. F. 3. Solidarity i. E. Theological topics are only those that can become an object of ultimate concern i. 41 C. Major work: God’s Final Word: Compendium of Fundamental Theology 3. Method of correlation: Apologetic attempt to explain the contents of Christian faith as responding to questions of ultimate concern c. Represented particularly the conquered and the marginalized iii. articulating a political theology that emphasizes historical-social dimensions 5. Big idea: leave behind grand theories and try to return to the things themselves. Important work: Action 4. Important work: From the Problem of Man to the Problem of God (1988) 3. 3. he explored how “faith is in history and in society”. Big idea: If it's true that the demands of revelation are foundational. They are not mere conceptual attitudes. Important work: Systematic Theology 3. Juan Alfaro—“from the problem of man to the problem of God” 1. well-put question. nella storia e nella società. Hans Jürgen Verweyen—“the search for the ultimate foundation of meaning” 1. a. Three stages: a. Emphasized the importance of interior experience of faith. Important work: [not in notes] 3. and the answer has to be prepared by a good. including that of the Cross and of all the oppressed) b. In the same existential experience there emerge “signs of transcendence. 2. Important work: La Fede. Concerned about a divorce between theology and practical reality. Phenomenological-transcendental reflection G. Big idea: Atheism. Did doctorate with Ratzinger. Johann Baptist Metz—“practical and critical articulation” 1. there will necessarily be hints and traces of the theological and the supernatural in its insufficiency.

But where is Christianity’s distinctiveness? b. Basic ground of meaning is the capacity of man for revelation b. once we see that the figure of revelation remains unintelligible unless it is interpreted in light of God’s love. earthly) 2. Second approach: an anthropological reduction (follows Blondel) i. he struggled against certain closed-minded Thomists who could not imagine progress in theology apart from Thomism. Emphasis: sacramentum mundi (from below. as the history of philosophy provides even stronger grounds to believe in a basic limitation of our fallen reason: the greatest philosophers have often made the greatest errors.” b. all negative theology remains so empty that it is in immediate danger of drifting either into atheism (or agnosticism) or a philosophy (or mysticism) of identiy. Double structure of discourse i. Runs the risk of falling into a pure immanentism (i. In the Anglo-Saxon world. Many important works: a. mystical/spiritual) 2. I. love for him arises within us ii. Arising from existential and anthropocentric philosophy ii. religion loses its supernatural character) c. Love Alone is Credible i. Human liberty’s decision is always absolute. Although respectful of St Thomas. Theo-Logic c. Karl Rahner—“transcendental anthropology” 1. The Big idea: phenomenology of love a. this is foundationalism and anti-foundationalism. Does it indicate a weakness of reason? Not really. Theo-Drama d. “Apart from this revelation of love. Third approach: the “method of love” i. c. Heidegger—political association with the Nazis J. Propositional (2nd level)—communication of information e. Aristotle—women and slaves lack full human dignity 2. First approach: a cosmological reduction (Greek philosophy and past theology derived therefrom) i. c. 4. Beholding the glory of God in revelation. “Those that love know God better than anyone else” 3. you've got to be able to make a choice between true and false. The Glory of the Lord b. Tendency to frame theology within natural religion ii. Sought to promote a qualitative leap from neo-scholasticism to the modern era. A set of big ideas: history of Christian reasoning as consisting of three approaches a. 1. 3. By contrast. Emphasis: mysterium salutis (from above. To be able to affirm something like “there is no human liberty”. Important works: Schriften zur Theologie. Hegel—reduction of the infinite to the finite 3. d. Hans Urs von Balthasar—“phenomenology of love” 1. From Love Alone is Credible: i. 4. 42 a. Performative (1st level)—speech acts ii. This takes seriously our status as the intended recipients of revelation. Perceiving His beauty communicates the possibility of us responding to Him in love. Christianity appears as a logical fulfillment of natural reason iii. Lexicon for Theology and the Church . then the Wholly-Other and Ever-Greater appears tangibly and surprises us in the ultimate and unsurpassable incomprehensibility of divine love. The perception of divine love is itself the basis of Christianity’s credibility.e.

and made self- reflective. the Blessed One.“Democratic” conception of mysticism. one day death will bring in an extraordinarily silent void. time into eternity. reflected upon. A mystical experience belongs to the evident Christian realities: these are always present. radical. This experience needs to be brought out. a. but others have certainly experienced God as well. “One day all the stars of our ideals. This question is an existential one for Rahner.] . one day the face of Jesus. The basic approach: 1. with which we ourselves had arrogantly decorated the sky of our existence. theology has the task of speaking not just to theologians but also to laypeople. however long. just a few months before he died: i. given freedom into freedom handed over in act. will appear to us like a single. he has had an experience of the love I'm talking about. Slides). He says.E. as His grace is always present and active. I can give him a discourse on love and he wouldn't understand. who by his pure light and love takes away and gives us everything. Indeed. 1. Nevertheless. we shall discover that this enormous and silent void that we experience as death is in reality filled with that originary mystery that we call God. You see things like this often in pastoral experience. he once again recommends reading the course texts provided on the theses or the complementary bibliography. and in silence as our true essence.” b. In the meantime. one day. Two parenthetical notes: A. will cease to shine and will go out. regardless of our opinions” (Cf. A question at play in all of this is: how does one experience God? i. In particular. ii. “The task of explaining the experience of God to a layman is entrusted to the priests. and we will receive this void with faith. but to begin consider primarily a conference he gave in Frankfurt in February 1984. he has lived an experience of love in a much more profound. one day all of our preceding life. hope. [Note: Fr Patsch mentioned that he will give concrete indications regarding the exam at next week’s lecture. and his approach provides a way of talking to even the most refined of us moderns. brief explosion of our freedom. even a rural person with little education who truly loves another has a profound transcendental experience: “If a peasant loves his girlfriend. 2. Everyone has already experience God’s grace in some way. shall emerge from this unfathomable mystery.  Mystical . Various dimensions can be involved:  Philosophical  Existential . which seemed to us drawn out only because we saw it in slow motion. His thought covered many different subjects. in that it is accessible to everyone and not merely to a few 14 May 2014 I. possibility into reality. terribly afraid and ineffably jubilant. and honest way” (Rahner). though reflection upon it occurs a posteriori 4. He also suggests that understanding the material from the slides on the course site is a good way to prepare. “transcendental experience” is a type of experiential grace.. 3.. in fact. 43 5. according to which we can all experience God. an explosion in which the question is transformed into reply. Big idea: How is God experienced by us? The Answer: transcendental experience.g.

The Interpretative Context A. post-colonialist. Break-down of the subject-object schema: the myth of the autonomous and free human subject has also been shattered in the last decades. to the point that many speak of the “end of the nation-state” c. End of the belief that every problem has a technical solution g. transcendent God even to a non-believing friend in perhaps an hour. B. i. Example: the death of the metanarrative of social progress by planning occurred on 15 June 1972. This would be appreciated by most audiences today. Describing who Jesus is would perhaps take a day to get even the basics across. that may be due to the fact that this is a daily given of experience that is too little noted. d. not an extreme type of deconstruction or relativism b. many of us could describe the idea of a single. Two basic trends are particularly important: 1. A general phenomenon of “de-territorialization”—thanks to electronic commerce and travel. value-free knowledge has been seriously called into question f. but describing the Church . writes: “the fact that the Church is a Church of sinners is not very much in the foreground of theological interest. in an essay on the Church and sinners. post- patriarchal. Global infrastructure—dependence on resources and activities world-wide leads to a corresponding enlargement of our thought d. As Jean-François Lyotard defined it. and inter-religious. and a conclusion. Interconnectivity—frontiers are now very flexible. Here. i. it might take a week! To find a starting point. Globalization a.” . post-Europocentrist. As Fr Patsch notes. . Rahner. we don't consider Reason to be all-powerful as we used to at the beginning of this century. A naïve belief in progress is no longer dominant—most people don’t believe that things can or will always get better e. This is true also when taking an exam: Always an introduction. You can't live in this world and do theology without taking this postmodern globalization seriously.] Fundamental Ecclesiology Today I. If you're speaking on the Church. with the detonation of a failed urban renewal project in St Louis. postmodernism is the skepticism of metanarratives (overarching social or cultural frameworks that legitimize actions and provide shared meaning). Postmodernism a. Is the Church a “sinner”? You can't speak about the Church today without addressing this. b. including “Theological Pluralism” and much dealing with von Balthasar and Rahner. the points. The idea of neutral. Acceleration of social trends—many long-term processes are happening at an ever more rapid pace. In today's intellectual climate. h. you could use this provocative introduction: the Church as a sinner. When you have the opportunity to give a public lecture. [Note 2: a fair amount of the review material from this lecture was grouped with the previous lecture. It's a world that's post-industrialist. we mean the term in its less radical sense—a new way of thinking. 44 B. leading to cultural confusion 2. This Church is a sacrament of Christ. This postmodernism is marked also by a context of interreligious dialogue II. one’s exact location has become less important both for business and pleasure. Rationality is no longer all-powerful in culture—other considerations are generally prior to it. we should consider our current and changed Western context. c. it's always worth it to set up a structure before speaking. The Church: The Sacrament of Christ in the World A. .

apostolic. any spirituality that cannot bear the servile and sinful figure of the Church will become a type of religious fanaticism. Turning to the subject of ecclesiology. Jansenism. it was treated apologetically as a demonstratio Catholica—i. apostolic” Church—rather. who saw the Church as only a “house of prostitutes” and ended in Montanism. I thank you that I am not like that sinner”. “I know your works.” How can the Church be a pure prostitute? 1. some of the Church’s hardest challenges have been from movements that begin in scandal from the sinfulness with the Church: Docetism. and that of an overly Romanocentric conception. Rahner’s reflections on this subject are worthy of consideration. Three methods of ecclesiology: 1. we should also distinguish between a valid belonging/reception and a fruitful one. 419-434) 2. We must distinguish between the visible corporeality and the full reality filled with grace. In von Balthasar’s phrase.” As Christ says in Revelation. Montanism. holy. for many seminarians and religious. Protestantism. Most of the major documents took up the theme of the Church as sacramental. E. The Council documents entailed a fundamental re-thinking of the above methodology. Having overcome this challenge. This is first of all a dogmatic question: what do revelation and tradition say regarding the un-holiness of the Church? (pp. it is an important dogmatic question to consider the meaning of revelation and tradition in light of the non-sanctity of the church on earth. Von Balthasar: “Casa Meretrix. Historically. In many ways.e. why the Catholic Church is the superior church. In fundamental theology. Both Rahner and Von Balthasar address this. 45 C. their sin always remains in a stark contradiction of the Church’s proper essence. The Church. The method was a via historica that involved consulting ancient documents to prove that the Roman Church has always been essentially the way it is. we must avoid the attitude of “O God. Consider the sad case of Tertullian. the Church is the ur-sacrament (the primordial sacrament) of God. one can go forward. Fr Patsch thus recommends “Church as sinner” as a fruitful starting point in this consideration. Catholic. there was a via empirica which regarded the concrete existence of the Church as a sort of moral miracle that functioned as a divine sign. Lumen Gentium 8 says that this Church subsists in the Catholic Church rather than is simply the Catholic Church. which is a “net containing good and bad fish that will not be separated until the end of time. Finally. Vatican II’s Contribution to Ecclesiology A. this realization leads to the first crisis of vocation—the Church is on one hand a very human institution. her Lord forgives her sin. has a sacramental status. 3. As Rahner notes. a basic issue that must be thematized at the outset of a contemporary fundamental ecclesiology is the sin of the Church’s members and the structural sins connected with the institutional Church itself. given that the present of so many sinners and so much sin in the Church is a datum of our daily experience. in that She is a sign of something beyond Her that effectively produces grace— indeed. Given this context. then. involving external . Just as with sacraments. which looked for the four “notes” of the Church that must always be present: one. There was also a via notarum. The Council took up this language (from the Creed) but intentionally did not identify the Roman Catholic Church with the “one. The key: although sinners can rightfully belong to the Church. the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery is much like that of the Church: though having sinned. that you seem to be alive but are actually dead. Indeed. Catholic. As Jesus cautions. Rahner: “Church of Sinners”. it is interesting to note that as a full-blown dogmatic treatise it was practically inexistent at the academic level prior to the Council. 3. III. 2. She is a Casta Meretrix (“prostitute who is pure”). D. holy. Catharism. For him.” 4. a subtle but important distinction that recognizes the many good and true things that exist in other ecclesial bodies.

All the sacraments present this problem when it comes to the institution by Jesus. The “method of finality” emphasizes seeing the Church’s reality by considering her final goal and destination. speaks of this distinction: some things are only sacrament. This avoids reducing the Church to a juridically material object and recognizes the genuine mediating reality present in it. some things are only reality. Sullivan. Thus. it is not so easy to escape from metaphysics. are all based on this foundation. D. and the history of the Roman primacy. in Greek. Lyotard defined postmodernism as the suspicion of metanarratives (“incredulity in the encounter with metanarratives”). then by this foundation. B. This is freeing for theologians: you don't have to prove that the sacraments come verbally from Jesus. the true apologetic for the Catholic Church is ecumenicism. the Church is the primordial sacrament. Thomas. and of healing. the Church is the community of faith. is martyrdom. and love which has an intimate union with God and a unique role in the unity of the entire human race. 46 and internal signs along with a connection to them. Overview of Post-Conciliar Fundamental Ecclesiology A. Part II I. C. Regarding relationship. Per Lumen Gentium 1. In this sense. This is a beautiful justification. for Congar. the early Church. then. not “either – or. has the duty and right to specify and institutionalize the sacraments. Not even baptism is safe: early on the verbal form varied. “We must remember that testimony. even the validity of the sacraments is problematic. the institutionalization of Our Lord. as the synod fathers say. The origin of this thought takes us back to Rahner's book on faith. Kehl. at bottom. finality. of service to communion. and future unity. Congar. but you can presuppose it in this broad sense. following Augustine. the Church is seen to have two sides: a spiritual/eschatological essence and a historical/institutional existence. This is very Catholic: “Both – and”. C. Many major post-conciliar theologians took up some version of the via notarum (Rahner. and so Catholic critiques of them must not marginalize the great truths in them. “The Church is more credible if it gives testimony with its own life” (Synod of Bishops. and some things are both sacrament and reality. et res et sacramentum. Though this has often been taken in a relativistic sense. the suspicion of all metanarratives is itself a metanarrative. Postmodernism is an ambiguous concept of uncertain value. . Historical approaches have focused on an exploration of the Church’s founding.” Sacramentum tantum. IV. the Church. those of institution. Thus. hope. If Jesus founded the Church.” D. means that in many respects the Church can be found outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. 1985). Universality. Changes in the Contemporary Context (holdover from previous lecture) A. Once again. paradox. All the sacraments. B. where fullness of truth is uniquely located. that is. Congar notes the Catholic values and valid elements present in other Christian communions. B. 21 May 2014 Fundamental Ecclesiology. Küng) under various approaches: the methods of relationship. Why must we speak of the Church as fundamental sacrament? Because if we analyze her with the historical-criticism that's been applied the Bible. Their institution must be understood in an analogous manner to the foundation of the Church by Jesus.

ii. among which is the very famous “city on a hill” which is “built on a rock”. 2. relationality. Globalization and localization go together. or imperialism. mais c’est le l’Église qui est venue”) i. constituting a sort of “theological necrophilia” which refuses to engage the changed situation. For their fervor in the service of God and their charity toward others will cause a new spiritual wind to blow for the whole Church. inclusion. Is. Pius X condemned in Lamentabili (1907) and Pascendi (1907).” C. summarized this with the famous statement: “Jesus announced the Kingdom. The modernist crisis of the early 20 th century is a good place to begin sketching the history of this line of thought. which results in an attitude of laissez-faire that betrays the past. The via empirica (considering the Church from the perspective of sociology. H. empathy (a favorite word of Fr Patsch’s). the anti-modernist program impeded the development of such responses. Part of the response was the imposition of an “anti-modernist oath”. etc. Fundamentalism. a. II. which among other things emphasized the Church as having been instituted immediately and directly by Christ himself while he was on earth (cf. ethical obligation. DH 3540). Some basic positive themes of contemporary culture to emphasize: sustainability. 1. It actually underlines the fact that the existence of the Church was a necessary condition for the continuation of the proclamation of the Kingdom. This suspicion is a basic feature of contemporary culture. DH 3452. a controversialist of the modernist school. ecology. The Catholic modernist controversy developed from several lines of research stemming from liberal Protestant theology. The early Enlightenment rationalist theologian Reimarus argued that Jesus did not intend to found a church. B. 47 E. institutional dynamics. 4. The basic characteristic of fundamental ecclesiology since the Council has been to see these three united in a via testimonii—the witness that the Church and Her members give to Her authenticity in many different ways. "the light of the world" (Matt. though it is frequently taken that way. To some degree. which Pope St. It involved the critical questioning of the singular foundation of the Church by Christ. I. but it’s the Church that came” (“Jésus annonçait le Royaume. which will then appear as a sign lifted up among the nations (cf.). 5:14) and "the salt of the earth" (Matt. Relativism. The oath as such was necessary because theologians were not ready to respond to the challenge to the Church’s status posed by modernist thought. This expresses a noble inheritance of the Church regarding Her foundations (see also Vatican I. Note that Loisy did not mean this in a pejorative sense. generating two erroneous reactions: 1. Many different images have been used to illustrate the Church. The via historica 3. It will be our task to formulate an ecclesiology. but that the church resulted from a failed attempt to reestablish the Davidic kingdom. Three classical approaches to ecclesiology (again): 1. sanctam aedificare ecclesiam decrevit) 3. the council Fathers saw the Church’s first and principle responsibility as being a sign held up before the nations: “Let everyone know that their first and most important obligation for the spread of the Faith is this: to lead a profoundly Christian life. The Church as Rooted in Jesus Christ A. b. 11:12). 5:13). In Ad Gentes 36. The via notarum (considering the basic “marks” of the Church as present) 2. which obsesses over the past. Loisy. and global responsibility. . 2. F. this will depend on one’s own particular context. solidarity. G. and perhaps more problematic.

E.” a. without properly “ecclesial acts” from Jesus. what is the relationship between the Church and the Kingdom of God? Although we should hesitate to identify the two strictly. with the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues. b. In brief. a re-gathering of Israel. In the mid-20th century. He describes the Pauline epistles as showing a charismatic and somewhat fluid sense of ecclesiology. Jesus Himself was engaged in restoring the one people of God. LG 5: “The mystery of the holy Church is manifest in its very foundation. particularly in his preaching of the Gospel and his miracles that confirm the arrival of the Kingdom. and finally instituted and manifested in Christ. 2. nonetheless we must maintain that the Church’s founding acts lie in Jesus’ activity on earth. 48 5. . For Käsemann. LG 4 describes how the Spirit lives in and sanctifies the Church. which was prefigured from the beginning.. C. III. the Lutheran theologian Käsemann (associated with both Marburg and Tübingen) created an influential “synthesis. Theissen notes in his book The Historical Jesus: “After the death of Jesus. this is a negative process. In these two lectures. 2. prepared for in the history of Israel. around 70 AD. considering again Loisy’s question. The “new synthesis” proposed by the International Theological Commission (ITC) in the 1985 document “The Consciousness of Christ concerning Himself and His Mission” emphasizes that the early ecclesiology of the Church was implicit. 8. c. He describes the deutero-Pauline corpus as representing a Frühkatholismus. The thought of Lohfink provides our basic approach to understanding the Church’s origins: 1. He will defend the primacy of Peter. The Origins of the Church A. an incipient Catholic ecclesiology. Following the Resurrection. Thus. but we might take his approach and use it to motivate the legitimacy of the Church—the witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection and their immediate successors moved rapidly and directly to an ecclesiology recognizable to us. Lumen Gentium 2-5 is an important magisterial point of reference on this issue.” Shortly thereafter. d.. a theological journey within the canon itself. which in ecclesiology is represented by the Roman primacy. from Schnackenberg and Vögtle on the right and Küng and Boff on the left share a basic structure to their research. his Jewish renewal movement became in a first moment a Jewish sect. B. 9. the Church moves decisively from being a Jewish sect to being an independent entity. the professor wants to convince us of the legitimacy of this. The findings of new research: The Church arrives only after the glorification and Pentecost! 10. the earliest writings in the New Testament) vs the later ecclesiology of the deutero-Pauline corpus. this sect entered a definitive “schism” because of the destruction of the temple. LG 3 describes the mission and work of the Son. 6. He analyzed the origins of the Church through a dialectic of the early Pauline ecclesiology represented by the first epistles (i. there is a structural continuity of this community but also a transformation. 7. 3. developing over the years in continuity with the basic principles that it had received from Jesus. Käsemann’s view describes a developing ecclesiology at the time of the New Testament. attempting to convince anyone who's doubtful. who inaugurated the Church while present on earth and is even now at work through Her.e. 4. We might also take it as a motive for the legitimacy of theological development. there is an organic connection between the pre-Paschal Jesus and the post- Pentecost Church. 1. the Church becomes itself as such following Christ’s Ascension and the event of Pentecost. More recent theologians. So. 3. LG 2 speaks of the Father Himself has convoked the Church. D. Thus.

An Existential Excursus A. IV. There is a historically-demonstrable will to found the Church that one can see in all of these different acts of Jesus. The reconstitution of the community thanks to the Resurrection. the Church is simply a human institution. 5. The ample invitation extended to all men by Jesus to convert and believe in Him. 6. This is an attempt to relate to the other. The historical fact that Jesus persisted in preaching the Kingdom. He spoke of this Kingdom. because He does not influence the workings of providence and grace. in which one side imposes its perspective on the other iii. This is not exhaustive. “For you personally. If Jesus is only God. The refusal of Jesus by Israel and the rupture between the Jewish people and the disciples of Jesus. The problem is that such objectivity does not exist in human affairs 1. The imposing of a new name on Simon Peter. The definitive rupture between the “true Israel” and Judaisim. In theological reflection. Even if it’s not historically easy to specify. The sending of the Holy Spirit that makes the Church truly a creation of God. 9. Self-centered paternalism i. 3. but since Christianity is a historically. He would know the whole story of the Church up to us in His foreknowledge. We can pretend to do so. 4. 2. Dialectic of submission-dominance. Note that one’s mode of connection with history is closely connected to one’s relationship with the Other. The result of this approach is a type of intellectual tyranny . In all moments of His life. almost as an institution. 3. The 1984 ITC document Selected Themes of Ecclesiology summarizes the “founding acts” of Jesus. what is the aspect that is most important? Which aspect needs to be “worked on” mentally? 2. but an immature and permanently self- referential one ii. We attempt to act as neutral observers iii. 4. 49 F. The saving force of Jesus’ actions presumes the promises made in the Old Testament 2. 8. Similar to a doctor who is interested in solely diagnostic knowledge of a patient iv. Indifferentism i. If He's only man. Obviously we know that according to Chalcedon He is true God and true man. G. There are three basic approaches: a. The call and institution of the 12. founding of the Church by Jesus. giving a suitable. Attitude of distance. 10. is it easier to relate to Jesus Christ as man or God?” 1. we should consider not only the positive data but also the personal dimensions. The question becomes.and personally-mediated religion. 7. it has theological implications. by which there is a reestablishment of all Israel. even if perhaps implicit. Fr Patsch proposes the following questions to do so for this subject: B. The challenge is to hold both together and to discover the origin of the Church. But for me personally. even coldness v. The Mission to the pagans and the constitution of the Church of the pagans. updated Catholic synthesis of the founding of the Church: 1. 3. It's not wrong to speak of an “implicit ecclesiology” as the document does. “What is my relationship with history and the Other?” (a short lesson on hermeneutic philosophy) 1. what is our relationship with history? What is our relationship with tradition? C. there is still a valid. This question is basically philosophical. but the subjective perspective is always present b. The Other/history are treated as mere objects ii.

and so a traditio constitutiva was necessary to supplement it. on the other hand. To summarize this discussion of fundamental ecclesiology. affirmed that the Church had jurisdictional authority iure divino [i. Rather. The internal sign is the effect of grace in the saving mysteries B. True encounter with the other results in a transformation in which I do not remain the same as I was before v. A mutual. Truth and Method 1. Openness toward the Other i. the Church had no binding authority. The central document is Dei Verbum (and within it. We must maintain a sense of Jesus as the Church’s founder b. A recognition of their historical emergence by providence. This approach is very productive in the encounter with other people and cultures. We can interpret what appear to be later develops as the progressive working-out of an ecclesiology which was fundamentally present though still implicit from the beginning 2. a traditio interpretiva was necessary). With respect to morals and the Christian life. again attempting to overcome this dichotomy. 2. the action of the Spirit must be seen as present within the Church. sections 6. Every authentic dialogue presupposes and itself constitutes a language of discussion 2. and so the Church is not a purely sociological process. I do not close myself in with my identity or the Other in his. Trent. Two Classic Dichotomies A. Vatican II was an important effort to overcome this old dualism. 3. The 1972 statement from the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue treated this issue similarly: the ius divinum is itself carried within the signs of history. iv. Some topics of note: 1. the Church’s exercise of authority is not arbitrary or autonomous from God]. In the Reformation period. 4. the Catholic view saw tradition as having an interpretive force (though Scripture remained “materially sufficient” with respect to doctrine. The Spirit as creating a “new humanity” (Rom 5:12-25) 2. 2. Luther worked from the principle of sola scriptura to argue against any ius ecclesiasticum—for him. The external sign of the Church is Jesus Christ Himself 3. 4.e. 3. we can note several themes: 1. 50 c. Gadamer. Conclusions A. Modern theologians recognize that there can be an implicit institution of the sacraments. the Catholic view saw Scripture as materially insufficient. and 8). as well as one’s own tradition V. VI. 7. Vatican II. Concerning Scripture. 5. I allow myself to be influenced and changed by my experience of history and the Other iii. including history itself (Eph 1:10) C. Scripture vs the Church 1. B. Recapitulation of all things in Christ. recognizes the Church’s activity itself as resulting from divine providence [i. In the Reformation period. Cf. In general: the Church is a universal foundation and norm . and so the Christian was subject directly to God’s authority alone (ius divinum). Ius divinum vs ius ecclesiasticum 1. reciprocal relationship ii.e. the basic choice seemed to be between sola scriptura (on the Protestant side) and a two-source theory of revelation (on the Catholic side). which saw both Scripture and Tradition as arising from the same source. God Himself has authorized the ius ecclesiasticum] in primacy and sacraments. The Church’s institution by Christ a.

and Vatican II. missionary zeal 2. more humble reasoning is necessary. C. “New Religion”: 110-? AD 1. VII. Autonomy c. Preeminent Role of Peter A. but the postmodern take on rationality suggests a solution. B. Characterized by fellowship (koinonia). the Spirit acts. Christian testimony becomes less missionary and mobile as institutional structures form 2. This predisposition. If I come from a particular context. and famously explicated by Cardinals Osio and Bellarmine. 21st century—emphasis on: a. 2. Sub-apostolic period: 60-110 AD 1. given the variety of different sources and traditions that support this fact. 51 1. It is extremely likely that Jesus gave this name to Peter. there is a connection of sense. He is the Twelve’s spokesman and becomes the first public witness of the Risen Christ. Several idealized descriptions are found in Acts B. Progress e. and we have to safeguard them. Historical Periods of the Primitive Church A. This all gives Peter a special relevance. C. Apostolic period: 30-60 AD 1. paschal mystery. Universalism d. Empathy d. Vatican I (which provided the magna carta of the Petrine ministry). Reason b. A recognition of reason’s limits b. In the rationalistic sense. is there a true founding of the Church by Christ? There are still topics to deepen. Structures of Plausibility A. Ethical sense of humanism e. The truth is partially conditioned. himself becoming a “good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep” and dying a martyr’s death. E. sharing of goods. So. The logos is not totally weak. The continuing Petrine ministry of primacy in the Church has been described many times: the Councils of Lyons. sending of the Holy Spirit). and Ephesians refers to the recapitulation of all history in Christ. The name indicates a couple special characteristics of Peter. Spirituality . 4. 3. The salvific mysteries of Christ (incarnation. The Letter to the Romans speaks of a new humanity. D. A post-modern. The Church begins to take on a pastoral and stable character C. He also commences the Church’s practice of missions and has a major role at the Council of Jerusalem. The theological conclusion is that the primitive Church is normative for us for all times. one that doesn't think of itself as omnipotent. IX. B. A more self-reflective autonomy c. and we are predisposed to accept a truth by having an experience of human love and solidarity. Secularism 2. the logos is not strong enough to convince someone only. Is this information completely convincing regarding the Church? Not entirely. Florence. D. this “structure of plausibility” doesn't exclude the action of the Holy Spirit. but often – most often – through these. sometimes despite these structures. rather. exclusively with rationalistic arguments. Follows the expulsion of Christians form the synagogues VIII. 18th century—emphasis on: a. There is a conditionality of the truth. For example consider these two (not mutually coherent) types of post-Enlightenment thought: 1. Our predispositions and our openness to transcendence go very well together.

The latter term. In the Gospels. However.Gadamer. The mystery that God can speak to man. Mystery. Analytic . 3. Indications of testimony in the Bible. “For this I was born. and resurrection of Jesus. As our Lord himself said to Pilate. testimony is not a thing in itself.’ that is. look at the various films on Jesus. we notice from this perspective that one who gives witness does not simply narrate a set of facts but also an interpretation of them. As Rahner said: “Only when the Church shall be transformed courageously at a world level. because he or she has been involved in and changed by the events. Phenomenological . death. Paradox. The art of interpretation requires that a particular position be taken. the credibility of the Church depends on the credibility of Her activity and witness in reaching out to all people. Vattimo c. and this is not necessarily bad. explicit or anonymous. and Witness [Thesis 10] A. and when she does. Two words figure in: eyewitnesses (αυτοπται) and witness (μαρτυρες). one’s perspective is not simply an arbitrary decision. the written gospels which testify to him are not merely an abstracted set of facts in the text but rather are “tendentious. There can be errors. a commitment to its existential truth. But the truth sought here is not the same sort of truth sought in the modern natural sciences. the central figures of witness are the apostles. and ceases to be a European Church with exports in the world. The Church is only credible when she acts with these means in her story. Jesus Christ. Levinas. For example. who testified not only to the life. 2. by far the predominant one in the New Testament. as there are better and worse perspective among which we must choose. and for this I have come into the world: to bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37). these are the important philosophers: a. 28 May 2014 “Paradox. Tilliette b. B. Mystery. In Rome. a tendency continues to prevail that is a little too euro-centric. Theological perspectives . 3. A “witness” in the full sense of the term is never a purely neutral observer. which the professor follows most. indicates something more than simply having perceived an event: one has encountered the event and also taken a position towards it. Within the Bible. shall she be truly the soul. Thus. Similar to above. we can note that revelation does not occur as a sort of meteor from the sky but is primarily the living reality of a person. they indicate how those facts have changed . 2. The title words of this section indicate the question of how is it possible for God to speak to humans. and the Magisterium’s treatment. There are certainly wrong interpretations. 52 F. They each have a specific take on Him.Austin. Remember. and analytic philosophy—but for this course we will consider primarily phenomenology. Thus. and Witness” I. This is a big theme in John’s Gospel. Several different philosophical traditions could be brought to bear on this term—notably phenomenology. C. Geffre. hermeneutics. Toward a philosophy of testimony 1.Rahner. a philosophical view. Searle d. The category of “witness” is useful in explaining this possibility.Ricoeur. is an undeniable paradox.” G. 1. she is credible. We want to be able to bear witness to this. but also to the salvific significance of these events. of the world. Hermeneutic . We will consider it from three basic perspectives: its treatment in the Bible. According to the hermeneutic school. It doesn't mean that it's all arbitrary. and that man can respond.

a. She was bedridden. The initial revelation was to the apostles b. These three categories of testimony can be memorized if you want: 1.g. D. there were some of the biggest violations of human values ever. 8. a. All of these things are not unconditionally good. which is found in the fathers. His disciples. as it was incorporated into Scripture and is lived in the Church’s liturgical celebration . This joy is an ecclesial sign of credibility. 53 the authors and possess for them an existential importance. yet she was the most joyous person he had ever met. Let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows. Her members must: 1. Let them try to furbish these treasures. Christian Testimony: Ecclesial sign of credibility A. As a result. intent as he is on the science and technology of today's world from becoming a stranger to things divine. He couldn't deny her joy. and an expression of love for one’s neighbor 9. 7. which often disdains such connections 3. Through her. Her family had died in Communist Russia. The presence of the Risen Lord who will return was undeniable among them. II. He was baffled. should know the people among whom they live. Knowing other cultures is already a testimony to the Gospel in some way. which we can only understand properly if we let ourselves as well be changed by them (Wirkungsgeschichte). but there was an unwillingness by the Nazis to admit this. people who have themselves been changed by the events. and in her he encountered Jesus. profoundly penetrated by the Spirit of Christ. Let them awaken in him a yearning for that truth and charity which God has revealed. In 20th century Europe. Be familiar with their national and religious traditions a. a. and bring them under the dominion of God their Savior with the light of the Gospel a. This is an ancient idea. Knowing another culture and traditions well is already a testimony to the Gospel. Acknowledge themselves as also being members of the human groups in which they live. Apostolic witness a. A Jesuit in the Holy Land describes the encounter with an old woman that had led to his conversion. These seeds of the Word can be found in national and religious traditions. B. Testimony and the Magisterium . we can note that the documents of Vatican II use variations on the term “witness” over 130 times. 5.In Magisterial teaching. This speaks of a moral evolution. Dialogue with others with sincerity and patience. according to AG. This witness remains central for us today. rather. Christianity shapes cultures! 4. E. Charles de Foucald in largely Muslim Algeria 2. She continued to respect his Judaism. Be joined to others by esteem and love a. a. seeking to learn the treasures that God has given to others 10. the pattern. Share in the cultural and social life a. Let them look to the profound changes which are taking place among nations. Let them exert themselves to keep modern man. but began to speak of Jesus. This is the form. of testimony for the Church of all times. set them free. Ad Gentes 11 proposes a sort of Decalogue on the Church’s witness. and the council doesn't pretend that they are without need of the Gospel's purifying truth. 6. we arrive at the truth of Christ via witnesses. Important particularly in our individualistic Western context. he began to be a believing Christian.

3. In some ways.” Even if Christianity is attacked from all sides. but rather that in some manner. and perhaps the most beautiful testimony. 54 2. a point of reference and norm in our faith. is undeniable. A number of authors have made this operation: Tertullian “credo quia absurdum” (I believe because it's absurd). in the Church herself. which really is not ideal. Origen. which is a social institution which is at the service of the Spirit. as well as de Lubac. we do not say so. Fr Patsch understands very well the motivation of a recently opened Jesuit school in Japan which decided not to put crucifixes in the lecture halls: because the symbol of a man being tortured to death is not omnipresent in Japanese culture. the Spirit animates the Church b. it's a mystery. Although he disagrees with the decision. we in the West are overly accustomed to the Cross. This is the mystery. we can overcome the classic antinomy between faith/grace and the institution. The message of Jesus Christ has never been such a huge success without the institution itself of the Church. I Cor 1:17-31). Grace is received through the visible institutional structure. C. What Perspective for the Future? A. D. We should emphasize. Tillich (“method of paradox”). and love. Kierkegaard. From the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics. The paradox of the Cross and the Church surpasses but does not contradict human logic: it is foolishness for this age. in parallel with the paradox of the Cross. Today. but it is true wisdom. The Reductio in Mysterium a. then. There was a phase in theology that sought to divide grace and institution. c. The method of paradox is particularly clear here. Paschal. it seems that this reductio in mysterium. In a very real way. a horror to which we are perhaps overly accustomed. As Lumen Gentium 8 notes. At the end. The surprising phrase “ecclesialization of the Spirit” means not that the Spirit is somehow reducible to institutions. the Spirit has become institution. Paradox. it still creates a shock and a scandal there. The Church herself is an experiential foundation for dialogue. This approach in fundamental theology sees credibility as being found in the reality of testimony. Taken together. The greatest presentation of the Christian life. 2. is in Acts 2:44-47: “See how they love one another. hope. What new thematic keys? . that is. in amorem. The Method of Paradox a. Thus. The Church as an Institution 1. these three ways constitute a new via empirica (way of recognizing the Church as divinely-instituted through empirical observations). the Church is the pilgrim community of faith. however. Witness of the Church’s Life a. and von Balthasar (the Church as a Casta Meretrix). Indeed. The Pilgrim Church in history is made up of saints and sinners (Unitatis Redintegratio 6). i. though. Witness of the Spirit in the Church a. we could say that the Church is a graced institution and an institutional grace ii. Future Perspectives and a Brief Reprise I. forcing us to a reductio in mysterium: 3. which is foolishness for the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews but the power of God to those who are being saved (cf. is a synthesis of elements that surpasses human logic. this is a way of approaching credibility through the Church herself. that as Catholics we find no tension between the Spirit and the institution. and grace guides and strengthens that institution iii.

Theology is interesting: what would help in teaching cannot be taught. believing. being by nature part of a historical process. personal prayer is not treated nearly enough. Announcement/Proclamation/kerygma 6. we can no longer speak of being in the same historical period of modernity. in the building up of the body” (LG 8). politics. This expression is closer to us. We've seen conciliar documents. B. through his only begotten Son. C. 55 B. E. that aren't connected with that day's gospel passage. does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ. To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things. in a similar way. and post-modernity. you might have life in His Name. particularly when the end is nigh. and anthropological (philosophical) credibility in order to “give a reason for the hope within us” (I Pt 3:15). Life as such demands a foundation: it is necessary to find meaning in it. III.” D. an idea already present in the OT. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him. Since Vatican II is now almost 50 years past. The latter reminded us of martyrdom as the highest form of witness. The faith must be shown to correspond to anthropology. on testimony. Sign 5. Fr Patsch suggests as points for reflection: 1. What theme would be best to develop today. Thus. positivism. after all. been many changes since Vatican I—indeed. Prayer was hardly treated by Vatican II. Example of life 4. etc. serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation. and what can be taught is not worth it. The relative accessibility of these Vatican II texts relative to Vatican I speaks to our condition of historicity. To synthesize our perspective on the identity of fundamental theology: to ground and justify revelation as a sensible proposition of theological. and those of the 1985 synod. It is worthwhile to consider what the key themes for the Church’s witness might be today.” (cf. who vivifies it. Jn 20:31). Christian revelation has been given to us “These things have been written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ. God is in the midst of His people. Authentic Christian life 2. and in preaching. perhaps in a council or synod? The professor would suggest prayer. historical. and that. What are the particular characteristics of our own time? There have. it is the Church’s task as guardian and teacher of the Word to make apparent the faith’s credibility to every culture and time: “God. So where does its credibility come from? As the Vatican I document Dei Filius (1870) notes. The changes to our mentality from the new perspectives of Galileo and Darwin (not to mention Einstein) have gone very deep into our culture: globalism. The Church is a sacrament. and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. the sign lifted up among the nations to testify to Jesus Christ. so. Reprise of the Course A. it [the Church] is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. D. Preaching/catechesis E. There are priests that always add some certain issue at the end: abortion. Faithfulness to the Gospel 3. Personal Approach to Credibility . We preach about what concerns us most. Her mission is to gather the various peoples so as to become the People of God. F. The Church is the sacramentum universale salutis (LG 48). which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest credibility of the Christian faith. The Church herself parallels the Incarnation of the Word in that she has a double structure of corporeal institution and the Spirit who gives her life: “By no weak analogy. life develops. II. C. founded the Church. so many and so marvelous.

I already condition the answer itself. is an attempt to overcome the limits of temporality and historicity by finding enduring truth. The professor's companions were working in the peripheries of Madrid.which takes into account our own historical.” This involves dialogue with the people in four concentric circles: 1. as both parts have to remain present. The key word of this project is “dialogue. #100). B. and linguistic conditions. You can say. 1. Thus. It does not say all the other positions are conditioned while it pretends to be “objective”. The response is never independent of my question. and eventually the parents started to come too. high questions. 2. G. there is reason to hope.” Per Paul VI’s Ecclesiam suam (1964. 2. he spoke for the first time on the importance of dialogue. How do we approach the challenges of a secular age? Fr Patsch suggests two basic points to keep in mind. (Innermost) Those within the Church herself D. For we want. we must be confident in our own identity. We need to seek broad. In putting a question.” 3. C. The two can be hard to hold together. but also the great “African and Asian religions. There is hope. this Truth has become part of our human history. we need others. We don't want to say in an . Consider the image of the man with the Cross by a wall: it is hard to tell if he is putting it on the wall or taking it down. Monotheists. but we don't know exactly in what direction the Church will go. First. hermeneutic formulation of this phrase is important. Within the Church. however. They did it by means of the youth. and in two years they had revitalized a parish that had seemed totally hopeless. particularly on the margins of our cultures and countries where one would think there is no hope. openness—since every human person is open to and created for God. Not physical. and so openness is a key theme on both sides. to touch the eternal Truth of the gospel. This parallels our own situation today.” Putting this into words is testimony. The dialectic question-response is very fecund for theology. E. not narrow questions like “What is the circle of effect of the consecratory prayer?” F. it acknowledges even its own conditioned state. There is a much greater pluralism in which the Church must arrange herself. we must accomplish this paradoxical task: the (eternal) Word Himself became (temporal) flesh. Additionally. every person will have a transcendental experience of God which is the key to dialogue with them. The point is that the people have a hunger for the gospel. There are various consequences of this hermeneutic approach: There's a sense that we do not have a direct approach. but if we are to show the credibility of the faith in our own time and places. particularly of the great Eastern and Western religions. in which it is hard to tell which direction the Church is going in. cultural. no. Both must be evaluated positively. Metaphysics-practically and etymologically. What are particular aspects of our own approach to credibility? Fr Patsch gives two. Hermeneutics. Yet on the other hand. How to maintain these two antagonists is a paradoxical task. It's not hopeless. Separated brethren (other Christians) 4. and the recent phase beginning with the reception of the Enlightenment in the surrounding culture. but real. especially Judaism. describing it as a “series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us. for the truth. but we must listen to others and speak with them. relevant questions. “I don't know a more direct road to God than Christian revelation. this is not to solve but to hold together paradoxically. which has again separated the Church from the official state structure. there have been three general periods of history: the primitive Church (up to 325 with the legalization of Christian in the Roman Empire). The attentive. the “state Church” (up to the 17th century). 56 A. which is more similar to the Church of the Fathers. on the one hand to speak of something concrete. which are somewhat in tension with each other: 1. (Outermost) All people of good will 2.

word and spirit. priests. Patsch: 1. This helps us get out of entrenched way of thinking. This is not a positive development. We must also seek a unity of mysticism/spirituality and theology. with all respect and self-confidence. Get out of your own country/ region at least once per year for perspective on other customs and situations. “biblical studies”. maybe one of Fundamental Theology. and our generation is called to rediscover this unity of heart and head. I. I can say that I have never known a road that leads more directly to God. Christian professors. and the Institute of Spirituality are located. 3. and “mystical spirituality”. the Pontifical Biblical Institute. ideals. Always keep a fat book on your work. because from infancy I am made by my personal experiences. to what's important for them. But. a difference symbolized by the distinct buildings in which the Gregorian Department of Theology. Thus I can't pretend to have an objective perspective on this question. But traveling in itself doesn't help – it takes listening to people. and religious . making a unified “building” of Christianity. 57 absolute sense what is the best road. H. contemplative spiritual life is essential for theologians. parents. The most inspiring aspect of medieval theology was its ability to rally all aspects of Christian life to a common reality. Pray an hour each day outside the liturgy—a deep. A problem in the modern period has been the divide between “scientific theology”. Concrete suggestions from Fr. and read it regularly 2.