0:01

uh first of all um i would like to thank dave schindler for his great gracious invitation to participate in this
0:06
conference and for the honor of being able to commemorate with you all the publication of homo business
0:12
for two obvious reasons this is a major accomplishment not only is it one of the most important
0:17
works of catholic metaphysics in the 20th century it is also indispensable on to understanding han's wars from balthazar
0:24
indeed i would suggest that just as balthazar's theology cannot be understood apart from shivara's analogiantis which informs it
0:32
from the beginning neither can it be understood apart from homo business
0:38
which informs it in the end they're like the two philosophical bookends of balthazar's theology and the
0:46
accomplishment is all the greater given the formidable nature of the work which i mean not only is highly
0:51
demanding intellectual content which makes translation a labor of exegesis always
0:57
but also the difficulty of his prose replete with neologism such as trans annihilation to name only the most
1:03
obvious secondly i want to thank him for the opportunity this conference gives us to engage ulrich's thought more fully
1:10
and to think harder in god willing more deeply about the task of catholic metaphysics today i say today because while many have
1:16
disputed metaphysics whether under the influence of protestant theology such as bards or even catholic phenomenologies like
1:22
that of marions my own view is that the task of metaphysics will never go away not as long as we would continue to
1:29
think about being which as thomas says is the first object of thought in fact i would suggest that we amend
1:35
right now kant's famous slogan from his essay on enlightenment and say not just subpari audi dare to
1:41
think but rather and better sapires there that is to think being and through
1:48
thinking being wake up to the reality of the real logos who was the true light and true reason
1:53
of the world my first section is theology as the guardian of metaphysics therefore and
1:59
you may recall the quote i'm thinking of for the most part and perhaps
2:05
increasingly being which is given is taken for granted it is almost as if our fallen condition is the result of
2:12
the sisura between these two phrases being given and being taken for granted
2:17
and being can be so taken for granted even by philosophers that the very question of being is gradually obliterated
2:23
as heidegger famously meant lamented and as we ourselves might lament in view of the increasing reduction of
2:28
philosophy to analytic philosophy in which it is common to speak thoughtlessly and irreverently if you don't mind me saying so
2:34
at once of god as one thing one item one bearer of properties among others
2:40
but theologians for their part cannot forget the question of being and must continue to think about it and ponder it
2:45
even and precisely when philosophers have forgotten how to do so
2:50
asphalts are memorably put it this is the ultimate truth that christians as guardians of a metaphysics of the whole person
2:57
in an age which has forgotten both being and god are entrusted with the weighty responsibility of leading this
3:03
metaphysics of wholeness through the same fire but metaphysics is not aware that can be bought and sold ready made
3:09
we must ourselves think and we must do so all the more if ulrich is right that
3:15
grace arrives along the path of being as reinhard discussed earlier
3:22
my point in an event is that metaphysics is not something that catholic theology can do without not a following thomas god is being
3:27
itself if some essence sustains not if as ulrich would help us to understand picking up on the best that one can find
3:33
in heidegger that to think the gift of being is to give thanks in return
3:38
and not of thinking being a right which is to say eucharistically leads us ever more deeply into the mystery of our own being
3:45
as it is found in the being of the one who gave up his own being for us in some as thomas balthazar and more
3:51
recently john paul ii who deserves a shout out here as they all understood metaphysics and
3:58
theology go together indeed in the spirit of fijrazio they go together hand in hand
4:03
but same token i take the loss of metaphysical nerve and theology to be even more disastrous
4:08
than the forgetfulness of the question of being in modern philosophy or have we forgotten that theology is
4:13
about reality or that christ is the manifestation and way of being the definitive answer to the question of
4:19
what it means to be can one i ask understand christianity before being awakened to the mystery of
4:25
being and to the question of our own existence obviously one does not have to be a metaphysician
4:31
to be a christian but i dare say that every christian is implicitly a metaphysician and so far
4:37
as every christian somehow knows that our being is from god that god is the one in whom we live and move and have our being
4:43
and that we truly exist only to the extent that we exist in christ looking forward to that day
4:48
when we we will be like him seeing him as he is from such scriptures
4:54
it should be obvious that christianity is implicitly metaphysical even if it can be practiced without explicitly understanding it in such
5:01
terms now i have seen specific sneaking suspicion that i may be
5:07
preaching to the choir and that no one would have come to this conference or ever bothered to pick up
5:13
and read homeworld business without a serious interest in metaphysics
5:18
obviously it's not vacation reading so without further ado let me get on with my talk and try to say something more
5:23
specific about ulrich's work and how it ties into the task of metaphysics today a task that involves not only removing
5:30
philosophical and cultural impediments to the faith chiefly by breaking open every imminent
5:35
frame by the posing of the question of being but also clarifying the meaning of being once it
5:40
is seen in light of christ namely as an image of divine love if the first aspect is proper to apologetics
5:47
the second is proper to the intellect of fidei but both i would like to underscore are part of
5:52
the task of metaphysics so part two modern catholic thought and
5:58
its antagonists as my original rather nondescript title indicates with a forgivable misspelling
6:04
of shiva's name i should add not being polish i had to look three times myself
6:10
i intend to talk about shivara ulrich and modern catholic thought more specifically i want to talk about
6:16
the respective understandings of the real distinction and thus of the analogy antis and what
6:22
their different readings of it might mean for the future of catholic metaphysics but since we are talking about modern
6:28
catholic thought more precisely about catholic metaphysics and modernity which like catholic doctrine always
6:33
develops through challenges we ought first to identify its principle challengers and i think it's safe to say that the most serious challengers from the 18th
6:40
to the 20th century have all been german each being separated by about 30 years or so i mean
6:46
kant hegel nietzsche and heidegger i mentioned them however not because i have the intention or time to say much
6:51
about them here but only because of what they mean as the so to speak negative condition for the possibility
6:56
of modern catholic thought homo business for example as people have already said is
7:01
unintelligible apart from hegel and heidegger the same could be said of chivalrous analogy antis which is implicitly
7:08
structured by a two-way conversation with hegel's essentialism and the early heidegger's existentialism
7:14
and in between shivara and ulrich i hasten to add gustav sievert whose understanding of thomas is thomas
7:20
is colored by and equally unintelligible apart from what it is to hide guard and hegel indeed so important are these background
7:26
influences that what distinguishes these three catholic thinkers is at some level simply how positively or negatively they
7:32
view hegel and heidegger respectively take for example their views of heidegger in 1932
7:39
shabara was happy to credit heidegger for helping him to clarify his understanding of finitude but after the rise of the anus regime he
7:45
became increasingly negative and wary of him seeing heidegger's early philosophy as an atheistic existentialism and his
7:52
later philosophy as a secularized theology sievert and ulrich by contrast are remarkably my view receptive of his
7:59
influence to the point one could argue that they re-baptized heidegger for catholic purposes as augustine did for plato and thomas
8:05
for aristotle the matter is similar with regard to hegel whereas shivara is more negatively
8:11
disposed to hegel seeing him as the supreme example of thoughts succumbing to the original temptation
8:16
sievert and ulrich are more hospitable to him being in nearly constant conversation with him and seizing upon his insights before
8:22
pushing him away as it were at the very last minute but let us be clear in the end they all
8:28
reject hegel it's just a question of how strongly and how long they wrestle with this provocation
8:34
moreover they all do so by the same means each reaffirming and articulating at times with disney degrees of
8:40
complexity thomas's core metaphysical doctrine of the analogia antis but how they understand the analogy
8:46
antis differs indeed as each of them shows the analogyantis which is grounded in the themistic
8:52
distinction between essay and ascencia emits a range of possible interpretations
8:58
which brings me to my proper task first to explain these differences then having
9:04
clarity clarified them as much as we can in what what 20 minutes 15 20 minutes left
9:09
um to suggest that the analogy antis which i take to be the core of catholic metaphysics and so too of a catholic doctrine of
9:16
creation can be understood fully only when one hears the resonance or rhythmic oscillation between its
9:23
different intonations or emphases one emphasis that is peculiar to
9:28
shivara the other that is peculiar i would say to ulrich house hebert figures between
9:34
them is another question but for reasons of time and as much as sievers thought could be said to be come
9:39
to fruition and ulric that's something that emmanuel might dispute i will limit myself to a comparison of
9:45
shivara and ulrich accordingly after this admittedly rather lengthy introduction
9:51
i begin with how shivara reads the real distinction with an eye to how he does so vis-a-vis hegel
9:58
so shivara's reading of the real distinction in an early essay from 1925 on aquinas
10:04
as a problematica shivara poses thomas against all systematizers
10:09
even those who would turn thomas himself into a system as he thinks happens typically in the
10:14
schools rather he argues that thomas's greatness consists in that he was at the end of the day an apparatic thinker
10:20
who recognized the tensions animating all thought and being not just for starters between thought
10:26
and being or between being in consciousness but between thought and experience idealism and realism
10:32
and there with the tension between the platonic form beyond being the edi and the
10:38
aristotelian form in being the morphe for shivara however
10:43
the ultimate reason for thomas is epistemological modesty and the ground of all these tensions
10:49
even that between being in consciousness is the ontological tension in creatures between essence and existence
10:55
as he puts it in 1925 what is the reason for thomas's epistemological stance thomas gives us the answer and is
11:02
a pus with his teaching on the fir final creaturely tension span
11:09
it's an important word in his vocabulary between ascencia as thomas puts it for the creature
11:15
essentia est aliqued a liquid qualm ese elliot quam ese in other words the content of the
11:22
creature its essence is a limitation in something other than pure being by virtue of the fact that creatures
11:27
fall apart into a whole variety of different and distinct contents and i'm quoting him here again
11:32
sun and moon plant an animal man and angel flowing absolute being is contained and limited
11:38
stratified into spatial difference in temporal succession flowing being before which all contents
11:44
are ultimately relative isn't superbly posed by the contents that set limits to its flowing
11:49
and solidify it there is much to say about this passage but let's just focus
11:54
on the phrase fall apart as in the falling apart of creatures into this and that content by which the purity of being is restricted
 12:01
and as we're bottled up the phrase fall apart i think we would all admit sounds pejorative
12:06
and you might think that this is simply a function of translation and that shivard is not intended to have this negative sense
12:12
and point of fact though he does because this is quite important for him for
12:18
thomas it is only when we see this falling apart so to speak of essay and and fallen reasons fundamental
12:25
in a fundamental inability to close the gap between them between essay and essentia only then
12:33
is the metaphysical eye opened to the one in whom essay and essentia are one such is the negative apathetic function
12:41
of the analogy entis as he understands it in 1925 and so he concludes his essay by saying that the
12:47
task is ever more humbly to see through the delusions of all all apparently complete systems and to
12:52
recognize one's true vocation which is reverent silence before the mysteries citing thomas's famous hymn on
12:58
the eucharist adoro te devote la tense deitas the following year we begin to see more
13:05
clearly what or who is informing his strongly apophatic reading of aquinas in 1922 he was more obviously concerned
13:12
with max schaeler whose phenomenology was the subject of his first monograph on shaylor and newman
13:18
by 1926 though the real betenois is hegel as shivara puts it in a tellingly
13:24
entitled essay thomas or hegel the themistic analogy is decidedly opposed to hegel's
13:30
university in the case of hegel hageley says any difference between a creaturely unity of
13:36
opposites between essence and existence and a divine unity of opposites ultimately disappears resulting in a
13:43
quote genuinely ontological university and not just a conceptual university as one finds in scotism
13:51
for tom thomas however there is an essentially ontological analogy between the divine unity of essence and
13:56
existence understood as an essential identity and the creaturely unity of opposites
14:02
between essence and existence in short we have here two different and
14:07
irreconcilable understandings of the relation between god and creation whereas hegel collapses the relation
14:13
into an identity in which shivara sees the final fruits of lutheran theopathiopanism
14:20
thomas maintains the relation as a genuine relation by virtue of a genuine ontological analogy between the
14:25
non-identity of essence and existence in creatures and an identity of essence and existence in god
14:31
before moving on to ulrich howard we have one more aspect of his understanding of the analogy entities to consider namely shivara's eventual
14:38
formulation of it in terms of a dramatic tension a spanish einheit to use his neologism
14:45
of essence in and beyond existence which in the analog giantess he calls the formula for every creaturely metaphysics
14:53
now if up to this point everything seemed relatively clear or at least one hope so this formulation
14:58
would seem to throw everything into confusion for isn't it precisely the other way around isn't it being that exceeds
15:04
essence and shouldn't we therefore say existence or being in and beyond essence
15:10
rather than essence in and beyond existence after all shivara's own early reading of
15:15
de entei edisencia would seem to call precisely for this and not the other formulation indeed he
15:22
initially presses so hard in this direction that all platonic augustinian exemplarism is essentially thrown out
15:28
the window for fear that it makes creation too direct a likeness an expression of the divine nature
15:34
as though augustinian exemplarism were one step away from spinoza or hegel i mean you can see his
15:40
worries here in in the 1920s so what exactly does shivara mean by this new formulation by
15:47
1929 we begin to see a shift in his reading of the real distinction and in fact
15:53
a revision of his early article on thomas from 1925 which was republished in a collection
15:58
dedicated dedicated as it happens to aquinas his teacher as he says magrude
16:05
magister as megista he now says uh with regard to his earlier reading it
16:11
is undeniable that this first version is constantly intersected by another that proceeds more from the immutability and
16:16
eternity of pure essence with respect to which existence is something accidental and hindu
16:22
commanders the second version is supported by thomas is saying that god is
16:27
is his essence deus este essentia with the emphasis on essentia and therefore this
16:34
version understands the identity of essence and existence in god in terms of content the content of the
16:40
divine essence he then goes on to say with apparent approbation that this version draws out the augustinianism in thomas
16:47
and that it is in fact the the standard to mystic account of the real distinction according to which essences are
16:52
immutable the essence but existence being accidental
17:00
by 1929 we can therefore identify a turn in his understanding of the real distinction leading to the formula
17:05
that we see a few years later zozin in ibadazin one could of course translate this as
17:11
essence in and above existence but for various reasons euphony aside i would prefer to translate it essence in and beyond
17:17
existence um how are we doing on time
17:25
obviously it is impossible to flesh out all that shivara means by this formula or why he now seems to prefer this more
17:31
augustinian version of the real distinction to the earlier extremely apophatic one but we can at
17:36
least clarify a few things with regard to it firstly it means that the being of the creature while different from its
17:42
essence esse aliquid is not something standing apart from a
17:48
given essence as though it existed elsewhere or alongside it but is rather its act of being secondly it means that
17:55
the essence of any creature is not something negatively limiting being but rather a positive form or idea in
18:00
the mind of god with its own speciosity or beauty by contrast act of being is that whereby
18:06
whatever is really is what it is in more aesthetic terms it is that whereby any
18:13
form shines becoming not just numeral a merely logical idea but phenomenal so that it can be called
18:20
and be held as splendid thirdly ascencia has a platonic ring to
18:25
it and hence the ring of eternal validity as in the unchanging essence of the true the good and the beautiful
18:31
to be sure instances of the good and beautiful suggest the realization of the ideal
18:37
and thus a unity of essence and existence but such moments are just moments flashings as it were of essence
18:43
in existence which continues to transcend its partial expression in the world of change
18:48
thus in 1928 he speaks of a tension that can never be mastered in thought between a being that is such so and
18:56
there da yet whose such in fact always remains to be attained so that in its purity it is never really
19:03
there fourthly and finally the formula is shibara's fourth
19:09
shorthand for the drama of philosophy itself understood as a predictable parade of one or another form of idealism or
19:16
realism essentialism or existentialism rationalism and empiricism timeless absolutism and
19:22
historical relativism and the whole gaudy show of fallen philosophy
19:29
rather tiresome at times if you think about it points back to a misunderstanding of the core
19:34
metaphysical distinction between essence and existence now um before turning to ulrich let's
19:40
quickly take stock of shibara's position which is in some sense a rhythmic non-position
19:47
he recognizes one the creaturely thought and being is fundamentally structured by the tension between essence and existence
19:53
two that this tension is unmasterable however much hegel tried to master it
19:58
three the creaturely being is therefore fundamentally open think potency obedience alice think mary
20:05
actually um bart once asked shivara this and um you know it seems to me that you
20:11
could just say mary instead of analog giantess and you know what shivara's reply was that's right that's right
20:19
and so uh being fundamentally open so the space it's the um in in ulrich there's the the closing
20:26
of the gap or essence in existence but in shivari he wants to almost hold it open um so that the cree there's the space
20:33
for the creature to look up it's almost as if that provides the space of its own need for god um
20:40
but that's a difference we can get to flesh out a little bit later so um any case the the the relation
20:47
between essence and existence as a relation it points upward and so that's the ano in the analogy of being
20:53
the ano the upwards movement and there's gerta in the background of
20:58
that too but i can't get into that now um but the point is that this reduces all philosophical systems
21:04
and every concept to mystery so that he can say that the conclusion optimistic philosophy is a reductio in mysterium
21:12
and that's really all against hegel turning now to ulrich we find that from the time of his
21:17
dissertation he too is focused on the real distinction and like shivara we could say that he
21:22
too is concerned with what we might call following charles taylor the imminent frame or the thoughtless reduction of being to
21:28
universal imminence which is to say in ulrich's idiom the inability speculatively to think apart the
21:35
indifference of being an essence and to see the miracle of their accomplished unity in the unum of anything
21:41
for his part however ulrich is also more receptive of hegel and especially his insights about the nothingness of pure
21:46
being and his understanding of creation as a kind of kenosis and so forth um but of course in the end
21:54
all this reception goes only so far um with regard to hegel he is quick to
22:00
speak of hegel's philosophy as a horrible and absolute abyssal perversion of theology whereby
22:05
the distinction between being and beings which should as for shivara open us to god becomes the logical means of god's
22:11
mediation of himself to himself indeed toward the end of homo business he speaks of the demonic frenzy of
22:17
hegel's pure science that is nothing but the ecclesia that has been perverted into the absolute
22:22
concept all of which indicates that the work really is an intense wrestling with the swabian geist
22:29
likewise with regard to heidegger he recognized what he calls the great danger of heidegger's thought which does not understand being as a
22:35
pouring forth from god and so never arrives at a proper understanding of being's non-subsistence
22:42
so then with these caveats let's proceed with ulrich's understanding of the real distinction how it compares with shivara's own
22:49
the most notable differences i think are the following and they are related first is what order makes of thomas's
22:54
statement depotencia which we've already heard quite a bit about the non-subsistence of being
23:01
as he says in section 53b alpha i just had to say that the sharpness of the
23:08
real distinction between being in essence results from the transcendental experience of the non-subsistence of being itself
23:13
which comes to subsistence only in the concrete finite entity as a unity being in essence this then leads the other most notable
23:20
difference namely what he makes of being's movement into subsistence to subsistence which as we now know he
23:27
understands is a canonic movement whereby being so to speak shows itself to be nothing or more precisely nothing but a gift as
23:36
a result every hypothetization of being which is to say every fixation of being as a substance and ideality is always
23:41
already negated canceled out indeed the very notion of being as an independent substance
23:46
floating in some ideal region turns out to be nothing but a fictional remainder concept by virtue of beings always already being
23:53
given away to beings in reality therefore there is no room for a platonic conception of being
23:58
hovering above beings because being his arrows always already emptied itself into them
24:04
allowing them to be by itself abnegation indeed to put it into dramatic terms allowing them to live by its death
24:12
and so the title they even in the einheit von laban untold and so forth but there's more to say
24:18
because the quote will recklessly let's go further right last weight again or whatever he says constantly you know
24:25
and we have not yet said the last word regarding beings were chippy uh lumitari and koaktari by the essence
24:32
there is always a certain relation of the essence as such to being as such that still comes to expression
 24:38
in these latin verbs the trans annihilation the being has not yet come forth in its
24:44
original weight in other words these standard domestic
24:49
terms don't get us far enough and understand the real distinction but there's a lot more going on in this
24:55
brief passage that should give us pause and serious cause for reflection so if you go over i hope you if i hope you won't mind i think this is
25:01
really good this is for all rich um and i don't mean the neologism trans annihilation but the use of the ordinary
25:08
word wait in german gavisht right so he says the the trans annihilation of being is
25:14
not you come forth and it's originally wait it's the kind of thing that one could easily pass over and miss but i'd like
25:21
to draw attention to it here because i think it actually carries a lot of weight no pun intended indeed i would go so far
25:28
as to see it an unsuspecting key to the whole treasury of his thought it's possible of course that he didn't
25:33
intend it to carry this special meaning but even if he didn't i'd say he was
25:38
inspired because the biblical conception of glory as we might remember from hebrew 101 is connected to the word for weight
25:44
kavod which in fact means both so we have here a connection between the
25:50
kenosis of being and the glory of being or more precisely between the kenosis of being in the weight of the glory of
25:56
being now why is this so important it's important because if we grasp what orc
26:01
is saying then we will never be able to think about being or indeed experience anything at all the same way everything will testify
26:09
to the weight of god's glory which fills all things as we sing in the gloria more specifically however what ulrich
26:16
helps us to see and understand is that this glory which fills everything is a function of kenosis the function of an overwhelming
26:22
cascading outpouring indeed he helps us to see if we can only catch a glimpse of it that the descent
26:27
of being is now pouring analogous to the eternal flowing forth of the sun from the father
26:33
as thomas so wonderfully describes it in the prologue of his commentary on the sentences from this perspective moreover we can
26:39
finally dispense for once and for all nietzsche's absurd caricature of christianity is a popular form of life
26:45
denying world denying platonism the truth as ulrich helps us to see is rather the opposite
26:50
that everything is full of god's presence and in the words of paul the weight of his glory
26:56
but once again all of this is a function of the kenosis of being and being able to see the kenosis of being which is to
27:02
say being able to see all things in christ
27:07
now bearing all these things in mind let's return to the same passage from homo business he goes on to say
27:12
so long as the difference between being in essence is held fast in the speculative gaze the essence has not yet exhaustively been grasped
27:19
by the being by being and by being and sublated just as being in reason has not yet been
27:24
submitted to the ultimate rigor of the obedience of being in other words we can't stop with the difference between being in essence
27:31
we can't hold being aloof from essence as it were rather we have to see it coming down we
27:36
have to see it in its kenosis and so he says only when being's
27:41
trans annihilation has been carried out to the point of the positively existing rays that is when the difference holds sway
27:47
no longer has a difference between being in essence but now as the difference between being and the subsisting entity which overtakes the
27:53
previous difference only then is the ultimate rigor of being's movement of fundetization
27:59
made visible to be honest i think this is a stunning insight and that it marks a genuine advance in
28:05
catholic metaphysics but with this qualification i don't think it's a step that one can be that can be made apart from faith
28:12
specifically faith in the canonical logos and a predisposition to see being in his image
28:18
but differently i'm not sure one can maintain a canonical ontology on purely philosophical grounds without the
28:23
presupposition of economic theology but leaving that aside what's at issue
28:29
here is not whether ulrich's philosophy will satisfy the philosophers who don't have faith but whether it will
28:35
satisfy those who do so let's return and i'm nearing my conclusion
28:41
to the comparison of shivara clearly ulrich gives us a somewhat different parsing of the real distinction
28:47
chiefly i would say in as much as the notion of the transcendence of essence falls away for here following ulrich the essence is
28:54
that which receives the gift of being not that which is somehow beyond it as in shivara's formula
29:00
to be sure both of them are still thinking in terms of the real distinction and in terms of the analogy
29:06
enters but ulrich is speaking in a different analogical idiom or at least i would suggest with a
29:11
different emphasis which is closer to the first version of the real distinction from which shivara gradually moves away
29:18
that version namely for which being is received limited and contracted in through and with the essence
29:23
we might therefore begin to specify this version as the mirror image of the other as
29:29
existence or being in beyond essence and we would be more just more more than
29:36
justified in doing so given ulrich's repeated emphasis upon the super essentiality of being
29:41
the uber base and hafetech designs but perfectly to meerab shivara's idiom
29:46
giving room for the canonic sense of being as love we would have to say that for ulrich the idiom of creaturely metaphysics is
29:53
existence or being beyond in essence emphasizing the canonic imminence of being to essence
30:00
with yet a further qualification that the kenosis is always already complete and that any beyond of being is only an
30:06
ideality never a reality so to repeat if shivara's idiom the
30:11
final formula of a creaturely metaphysics is essence in and beyond existence in ulrich's idiom the final formula of
30:18
creaturely metaphysics whether one call it philosophical or theological is being beyond
30:23
in essence so my conclusion now all of this may sound extremely
30:30
abstruse but i have but i actually believe that we have arrived somewhere
30:36
even if we have only sketched it out i think we have here the rudiments of a more catholic metaphysics which is to say a potentially more
30:42
complete account of the analog giantess i mean that within the one analog giantess metaphysical idioms of shivara
30:49
and ulrich go together shivars is more philosophical and apaphatic
30:54
ulrics is more theological and cataphatic while shivara's formula gives us a greater sense of divine transcendence
31:01
ulrich's or my rendering of it gives us a deeper sense of divine imminence while shivars is more epictatic
31:09
providing the metaphysical grammar of sanctification as a journey into one's essence for to be a creature is precisely a
31:16
stretch right for him
31:23
sorry it's such a stretch that you might want to take a stretch while i find my place
31:29
ulrich provides us with a deeper sense of the gift of being in every moment and the real beauty of it and allowing
31:35
us to see the real beauty of everything every unum in the here and now in short one could argue whereas shivara's
31:42
formulation bespeaks the reverence of transcendence ulrich's that of the intimacy of love
31:48
but before i push shivara to one side of this analogy i have to say that he was too great a thinker not to anticipate how these
31:54
aspects go together for one thing he recognized the two versions of the real distinction he often speaks chiastically with
32:01
augustine newman of loving reverence and reverent love in the analogy endos he even speaks of the higher analogy as an indwelling of
32:07
transcendence intersecting from above and making possible every transcending of imminence which is to say every
32:13
analogy from below what does more he even go so far as to make god's greatness a function of god's kenosis
32:18
quote this is 1939 and creatures mysterium the ever greater god is revealed
32:24
precisely and is emptying himself ever more in the mystery of redemption and being the one who ascends ever higher
32:34
as the one who descends ever deeper det with reference obviously to ephesians
32:41
but he is not as daring as ulrich as to introduce kenosis right into the real distinction
32:46
that would have overcome his sometimes tragic reading of it and so you could say that whereas his
32:52
analogical his analogical idiom puts the stress on reverence and transcendence deus semper mayo ulrexidium stresses the
33:00
nearness of being as love thank you
AllListenableWatched